DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission, filed on 3/24/2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The following detailed action acknowledges the amendments of the response filed on 03/24/2025. The amendments in the filed response have been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 21-26 have been added.
Claims 3, 11, 14 and 18-20 are confirmed to have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 21-26 are pending in the application and the status of the application is currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/24/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, the Applicant argues: Claims 1-10 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §101 because the claimed invention is allegedly is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The present claims are directed to techniques for performing offline transactions between user devices. Such offline transactions may be desirable in the absence of network connectivity for the user devices. For example only, a first user (with first user device) may wish to transfer funds to a second user (with a second user device) when neither of the first and second user devices has a communication connection with a network server. The present claims provide for generating an "offline transaction string" that can be directly transferred from the first user device to the second user device, which it can later (e.g., when a communication connection is restored/available) transfer to a transaction server to obtain funds therefrom. Importantly, the claims provide that "the transaction server has not pre-authorized the offline transaction or otherwise locked the amount of funds in advance of receiving the offline transaction string from the second electronic device." That is, the transaction server is completely uninvolved with and unaware of the transaction - or any possible transaction - until it receives the offline transaction string. In this manner, a truly "offline" transaction can be performed.
Applicant respectfully submits that, even if the present claims recite an "abstract idea" as alleged by the Examiner, the claims contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a "practical application" of the abstract idea and, thus, are eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. More specifically, the claims sufficiently integrate any such abstract concept to a practical application by reciting extensive details about the computer-based operations that are required to perform the contemplated offline transaction. In other words, the claims recite extensive and meaningful limits on any alleged abstract concept described.
Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are analogous to Examples 35 and 36 of the December 2016 revision of the 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2016 Updated IEG").
In response: The analysis confirms the process of performing transaction, the emphasis on offline transactions. Considering Step 2A(1), the claims recite an abstract idea defined in the transaction. The process to perform an offline transaction can be compared to using an electronic check transaction, which can be performed offline. The recited elements define an abstract idea in the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Regardless of the Examples presented, the use of the devices does not improve the execution of the abstract idea.
The Applicant further argues: Claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 of the 2016 Updated IEG were deemed to be patent-eligible because the "combination of the steps [] operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure that the customer's identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone." 2016 Updated IEG at pages 7-11 (emphasis in original). Example 35 is directed to verifying a bank customer's identity to permit an ATM transaction.
It is important to note that claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 were determined to be directed to an abstract idea, i.e., a "method of fraud prevention by identity verification before proceeding with a banking transaction, which [] is a fundamental business practice." 2016 Updated IEG at pages 9-11 (emphasis added). Nonetheless, these claims were determined to be patent-eligible, based on the following analysis:
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. In addition to the steps that describe the abstract idea of preventing fraud through identity verification, the claim recites the additional limitations of obtaining customer-specific information from a bank card, a processor comparing data, the ATM generating a random code and visibly displaying it on a customer interface, and the ATM obtaining a customer confirmation code that was generated by the customer's mobile communication device in response to the random code. The customer confirmation code is then used by the ATM to verify the customer's identity by analyzing the customer confirmation code with respect to the random code, and controlling the transaction by providing or preventing access to a keypad of the ATM based on the analysis of the code data. Considered individually, the ATM obtaining information from a bank card and the processor comparing data do not provide significantly more for the same reasons as in claim 1. Similarly, the ATM and the mobile communication device are recited at a high level of generality and perform programmed functions that represent conventional and generic operations for these devices, including reading data, generating random codes, and analyzing data.
However, the combination of the steps (e.g., the ATM's provision of the random code, the mobile communication device's generation of the customer confirmation code in response to the random code, the ATM's analysis of the customer confirmation code, and the ATM's subsequent sending of a control signal to provide or prevent access to the keypad of the ATM and thus allow or prevent a transaction based on the analysis of the code data sets) operates in a nonconventional and non-generic way to ensure that the customer's identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. In combination, these steps do not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or "skimmed" bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). Thus, like in BASCOM, the claimed combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea. Further, the combination of obtaining information from the mobile communication device (instead of the ATM keypad) and using the customer confirmation code (instead of a PIN) to verify the customer's identity does not merely select information by content or source, in contrast to Electric Power, but instead describes a process that differs from the routine and conventional sequence of events normally conducted by ATM verification, such as entering a PIN, similar to the unconventional sequence of events in DOR. The additional elements in claim 3 thus represent significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept) because they are a practical implementation of the abstract idea of fraud prevention that performs identity verification in a nonconventional and non-generic way, even though the steps use a combination of well-known components (an ATM and mobile communication device). Claim 3 is eligible (Step 2B: Yes).
Id. (emphases added).
Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of elements in the present claims similarly operate in a "non-conventional and non-generic way." Further, the claimed combination of additional elements presents "a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea, " similar to what was determined in Examples 35 and 36 and Bascom.
As discussed above, the claims provide for generating a "signed offline transaction string" that is an encoded and verifiable data message representative of an authorization to transfer funds from a first user to a second user in the absence of a network connection with a transaction server. The "signed offline transaction string" is decoded and the transaction is validated at the second user's computing device based on a public key/private key encryption scheme in order to complete the offline transaction. At a later time, when the second user's device establishes network communication with the transaction server, the transaction server further validates the transaction and transfers the funds to finalize the contemplated transaction. Applicant respectfully submits that this is a practical application and significantly "more" than merely an abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 3 of Example 36 of the 2016 Updated IEG were deemed to be patent-eligible because the combination of the recited steps "is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in [the] field" of the invention. Updated IEG at pages 12-17. It is once again important to note that claims 2 and 3 of Example 36 were determined to be directed to an abstract idea, i.e., "using data collection and management techniques to practice the concept of inventory management, which [] is an abstract idea." 2016 Updated IEG at pages 15-17. Nonetheless, these claims were determined to be patent-eligible because "using a high resolution video camera array with overlapping views to track items of inventory was not well understood, routine, conventional activity to those in the field of inventory control, " and "[t]he claimed limitations are not simply an attempt to generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment, " but are "meaningful limitations that confine the claim to a particular useful application." Id. (emphases added). Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of elements in the present claims is also not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity in [the] field" of offline transactions, as is described in the "Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103" section below. Further, the claims provide "meaningful limitations that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (offline transactions) similar to claims 2 and 3 of Example 36.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner states:
[T]he claims are not reciting a difference between using the technology and without using the technology, because they are just reciting how to perform a transaction without the use of a communication network. Without technology, the claims do not need the cryptography security and do not need the communication network for the transaction to be performed. The recitation of an improvement is not clear nor present in the claims, as it is in the example 36. The claims are not showing [sic] how a system works "offline" because they only recite "securing data", "transferring data" and "processing data", all functions that can occur without the technology. Thus, the claims have been determined to be ineligible for a patent.
Final Office Action at pages 4-5. Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner is misinterpreting the guidance provided by Examples 35 and 36 discussed above. Additionally, the Examiner fails to even address the contention that the present claims are analogous to claims 2 and 3 of Example 35, and instead just discusses "example 36."
As mentioned above, claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 recite a series of steps that, when they are "[c]onsidered individually[, ] do not provide significantly more" than the recited abstract idea. However, it is the combination of these steps that render the claims to be directed to patentable subject matter, because the combination "operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure that the customer's identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone." 2016 Updated IEG at pages 9-11. The logic and analysis supporting the patentability of claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 are directly applicable to the present claims.
In response: considering step 2A(2), as the claims are recited, the claims remain using the computers to perform the abstract idea. If the devices without the network connection did not have any account information, then it would be the same as using cash. Having the account information suggests the use of an electronic checkbook. The client pays the merchant, and at the end of the day the merchant deposits the payments of the day to the bank, where they are settled. The devices do not improve the technology nor the elements recited in the claims, individually or in combination. The problem to be solved is described in the Specification as:
There is an increasing trend in using credit cards or other online banking functionality (such as e.g. PayPal, UPI, Worldpay, etc.) for settling monetary transactions between consumers and sellers, whether they are individuals or companies. However, it is a prerequisite to have an available network connection with e.g. an online payment provider for ensuring some level of security for such monetary transactions. When no network connection is available, the monetary transactions must be settled using "classical means", such as cash and checks. Unfortunately, cash and checks may easily be counterfeited and or otherwise manipulated.
Under Background, pagemark 1, lines 7-14.
The use of cash or checks was never the problem. Where technology is used to substitute cash or checks, the need for connection to a network is necessary, but the lack of a network would render the devices unusable. Thus, the argument “difference between using the technology and without using the technology” does not actually show an improvement to the technology. The claims are merely executing the abstract idea between two devices, which does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application.
The comparison to the Examples is superficial because they are not properly reciting how the devices improve the technology or the technical field to be an improvement or a novelty, and the claims do not properly recite how the use of devices in a transaction is non-conventional when used offline, as is argued.
The results for step 2A(2) are confirmed, in view of the amendments, and the claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 21-26 remain rejected under 35 USC 101 as reciting an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims remain patent ineligible.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues: Claims 1-7 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable over Jiang (WO2015148850) in view of Arora (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0276663). Claims 8-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable over Jiang, Arora, and further in view of Rajarethnam (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0282590).
Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, discloses techniques for "performing an offline transaction to permit a transfer of funds between a first user operating a first electronic device and a second user operating a second electronic device when neither the first electronic device nor the second electronic device possesses a network connection with a transaction server,” wherein “the transaction server has not pre-authorized the offline transaction or otherwise locked, the amount of funds in advance of receiving the offline transaction string from the second electronic device" as provided for by independent claim 1 (emphases added). Independent claim 16 contains similar language and will not be separately discussed.
The present claims are directed to techniques for performing offline transactions between user devices. Such offline transactions may be desirable in the absence of network connectivity for the user devices. For example only, a first user (with first user device) may wish to transfer funds to a second user (with a second user device) when neither of the first and second user devices has a communication connection with a network server. The present claims provide for generating an "offline transaction string" that is "signed" with an encryption key and directly transferred from the first user device to the second user device, which the second user device can later (e.g., when a communication connection is restored/available) transfer to a transaction server to obtain funds therefrom. Importantly, the claims provide that "the transaction server has not preauthorized the offline transaction or otherwise locked the amount of funds in advance of receiving the offline transaction string from the second electronic device." That is, the transaction server is completely uninvolved with and unaware of the transaction - or any possible transaction - until it receives the offline transaction string. In this manner, a truly "offline" transaction can be performed.
The Jiang reference is related to a "secure offline payment system" in which an "account management system" in communication with a user device creates a signed "balance certificate" such that the user device can participate in transactions. Jiang teaches that a user must first request and lock funds in their "account management system" in advance of being able to complete a transaction. Jiang states:
In certain example aspects described herein, a method for providing secure offline payments comprises a user device that requests a deposit of funds into a user account maintained by an account management system and/or requests an up-to-date balance certificate. The request may comprise a request to lock certain funds in the user's account to prevent double spending. The user device request may also comprise a duration that funds are locked and/or a request that certain funds are only available at a certain location. The lock is later removed when the unlocked funds are used, the balance certificate expires, and/or the user requests that the lock is removed. The account management system accesses the user's account management system account, determines the available unlocked funds, creates and signs a balance certificate, and transmits the signed balance certificate to the user device.
Jiang at [0005] (emphasis added). That is, Jiang provides for an allegedly "secure offline payment system" so long as a user first communicates with an account management system such that a transaction is pre-authorized and funds are "locked" in the account management system.
In contrast to Jiang, the present claims specifically state that the "transaction server has not pre-authorized the offline transaction or otherwise locked the amount of funds" before the transaction is completed between the two user devices. Such an implementation may be critical in situations in which a user wishes to complete an unexpected transaction and cannot first communicate with the transaction server, e.g., due to the lack of network connectivity. Applicant respectfully submits that Jiang does not teach, disclose, or suggest a "transaction server [that] has not pre-authorized the offline transaction or otherwise locked the amount of funds in advance of receiving the offline transaction string from the second electronic device" as provided for by the independent claims.
The remaining references fail to remedy the deficiency of Jiang discussed above.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 16 are in condition for allowance. As the remainder of the claims depends from one of these independent claims, all of the pending claims should be in condition for allowance for at least similar reasons.
Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 are respectfully requested.
In response: After further search and consideration of the prior art, the elements in the claims are still too broad to describe the improvement that overcomes the prior art. Although the concept is to secure the transaction between two devices in a no-network connection setting, the functional limitations still only recite the use of key pairs for signing data used in the validation of the data between two people. As for sending the data to the transaction server, the process only shows the verification was performed in the devices and are not performed in the transaction server, and the transaction server is merely performing a settlement, not tied to the technology in the phones.
The amendments support the use of the devices in an offline event. However, the functional elements do not show the resolution of performing the payment transaction offline.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The analysis of the claims is based on the subject matter eligibility test that is detailed in the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) Guidance Update Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update)(July 2024), the 2019 Revision to the SME Guidance (2019 PEG)(January 2019) and the October 2019 SME Guidance Update (October 2019). The current guidance is referenced in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) sections 2103 through 2106.07.
In Step 1 of the test, the claims were found to be directed to one of the four statutory categories, which is a process. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15 and 21-25 are directed to a method of the steps to execute the process; Claim 16 is directed to a first electronic device adapted to perform the process; Claim 17 is directed to a computer system, comprising a first electronic device according to claim 16 and the second electronic device, the second electronic device being different from the first electronic device, and the transaction server, to perform the process; Claim 26 is directed to a similar method to claim 1. Therefore, the result of Step 1 is the claims are directed to at least one statutory category.
In Step 2A(1), the claims were found to recite an abstract idea. The claim 1, 16, 17 and 26 are similar. Using claim 1 for example, it recites as follows:
performing an offline transaction for allowing funds to be transferred between a first user operating a first electronic device and a second user operating a second electronic device, without involving a transaction server in the process of transferring the funds between the first user operating the first electronic device and the second user operating the second electronic device, the first electronic device storing a private key for the first user and the second electronic device storing a public key for the first user and relating to the first user's private key, wherein the method comprises:
selecting, at the first electronic device, an amount of funds to be transferred,
receiving, at the first electronic device, an identity of the first user,
receiving, at the first electronic device, an indicator of a transaction server adapted to be used for subsequently transfer the selected amount,
forming an offline transaction string based on the selected amount, the identity of the first user and the indicator of the transaction server using the first electronic device,
signing at least a portion of the offline transaction string using a private key for the first user using the first electronic device,
receiving the offline transaction string at the second electronic device, and
validating the offline transaction string using the public key for the first user using the second electronic device
transmitting the offline transaction string from the second electronic device to the transaction server, and
transferring, using the transaction server, the amount of funds to the second user,
wherein the transaction server has not pre-authorized the offline transaction or otherwise locked the amount of funds in advance of receiving the offline transaction string from the second electronic device.
The emphasized limitations recite the abstract idea. These limitations include a transaction between a first and second user, which is described to occur offline, such as when using cash or check. The process involves commercial interactions, such as sales activities or relations, reciting abstract ideas that are Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
The dependent claims further support the interpretation of the abstract idea. Although the claims recite cryptography and other technical elements, these elements are describing the security of the technology, but do not recite a change to what is described as a transaction between people. Therefore, the result of Step 2A(1) is the claims recite an abstract idea.
In Step 2A(2), the claims that recite the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations of the independent claims without emphasis are additional elements considered to provide a technical improvement to the abstract idea. However, the devices appear to be computers used as tools to perform the abstract idea. The process is not improved by the technical elements where the abstract idea is merely applied by the computers. The recitation of encryption key pairs (public key and private key) for signing as part of authentication, is securing the data but not changing the process of performing the transaction. Where the encryption keys are used it describes a method of security, but this does not improve the technology that performs the secure process. The first and second mobile devices are performing the transaction as if it was a buyer with an electric checkbook providing the payment to the merchant and where the transaction servers are settling the transaction as it would in a sales event. The servers are not improving what would occur in an online transaction to complete the transaction because they do not assist in the verification or the security of the transaction. Thus, the claim’s additional elements do not show an improvement to the technology or an improvement to the process that is a transaction between people.
The dependent claims attempt to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. As recited, the claims still do not show an improvement that is different than using cash or a check to perform the transaction. The dependent claims support merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the result of Step 2A(2) is the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite a first electronic device, a second electronic device, a transaction server, and wireless communication protocol. The claims are recited to perform the transaction as though the transaction server is not involved for authentication or secure transfer of funds. Thus, the two devices are not improving the technical aspects of the process nor are they improving the process of a transaction between people. The recitation of cryptography in the claims is determined to be extra-solution activity, which further does not improve the process. While the additional elements limit the abstract idea to a specific field of technology, there is no improvement to the functions of the recited technology, nor is there an improvement to another technology or technical field. Thus, the additional elements merely recite instructions to execute the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements individually, the claims do not include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements in combination, the steps do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea more than the elements analyzed individually and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention. Therefore, the result of Step 2B is the claims do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. The test concludes the claims 1-2,4-10,12-13,15-17 and 21-26 are patent ineligible.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10 and 12-13, 15-17 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO_2015148850 (hereinafter "Jiang"), in view of US_2018/0276663 (hereinafter "Arora").
Regarding Claims 1 and 26, [Main Prior Art] teaches
A computer implemented method for performing an offline transaction to permit a transfer of funds between a first user operating a first electronic device (user device 110) and a second user operating a second electronic device (merchant device 120) when neither the first electronic device nor the second electronic device possesses a network connection with a transaction server, the first electronic device storing a private key (account certificate private key 112) and a locally maintained balance for the first user and the second electronic device storing a public key for the first user corresponding to the private key (account certificate public key 112a), (See in [0032], [0040]) wherein the method comprises:
selecting, at the first electronic device, an amount of funds to be transferred, (block 250, 610-620, See in [0096]-[0099] and in Figures 2-3 and 6-7)
receiving, at the first electronic device, an identity of the first user, (block 350-360, See in [0059] and [0061] and in Figures 2-3 and 6-7)
receiving, at the first electronic device, an indicator of the transaction server (account management system 130) to transfer the selected amount, (block 210-220, See in [0049]-[0050] and in Figures 2-3 and 6-7)
forming, at the first electronic device, an offline transaction string including at least the selected amount, (withdrawal record) the identity of the first user, and the indicator of the transaction server, (block 620, see in [0099])
signing, at the first electronic device, at least a portion of the offline transaction string using the private key to form a signed offline transaction string, (block 630, see in [0100])
reserving, at the first electronic device, the selected amount in the locally maintained balance,
providing the signed offline transaction string to the second electronic device without involving the transaction server, (block 650, see in [0101])
validating, at the second electronic device, the signed offline transaction string using the public key to authenticate the first user and verify the offline transaction, (block 710-720, see in [0104]-[0106]) and
when the second electronic device establishes communication with the transaction server at a later time:
transmitting, by the second electronic device, the signed offline transaction string to the transaction server, (block 840-880, see Jiang in [0124]-[0128]) and
transferring, using the transaction server, the amount of funds to the second user only when the signed offline transaction string is authenticated and not previously used, (block 840-880, see Jiang in [0124]-[0128])
wherein the transaction server has not pre-authorized the offline transaction or otherwise locked the amount of funds in advance of receiving the offline transaction string from the second electronic device. (this limitation is a descriptive that has no function in the claim, where reciting a negative limitation the functions of the claimed invention are not dependent on the description provided. This limitation is given less patentable weight.)
The first device (110) and the second device (120) are configured to communicate directly via e.g. near field communication or Bluetooth and thereby exchange information without a network connection (see Jiang in [0020]-[0021], [0025]). The computer implemented method for performing the transaction of the offline transaction string (withdrawal record) between the first and the second electronic device is thus performed without involving a transaction server (account management system).
Jiang does not expressly teach formatting the information of an offline transaction string into a machine-readable format such as a barcode and printing it.
However, Arora does teach barcode and printable formats ("Once the sending computing device 102 has generated and digitally signed the transaction value, the sending computing device 102 may electronically transmit the signed transaction value to the receiving computing device 104. In some embodiments, the sending computing device 102 may generate a machine-readable code, such as a bar code or quick response code, which is encoded with the signed transaction value. The receiving computing device 104 may include an optical imager, which may read the machine-readable code and decode the signed transaction value therefrom. In other embodiments, the sending computing device 102 may electronically transmit the signed transaction value to the receiving computing device 104, such as via near field communication, Bluetooth, radio frequency, local area network, etc." See Arora in [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Jiang to include "machine-readable formatting", as taught by Arora, because special formatting secures the transmission of data between devices.
In claim 26, the transaction string is formatted: encoding the signed offline transaction string in a machine-readable format selected from a QR code, NFC payload, or short-range wireless protocol transmission.
Jiang does not expressly teach encoding the signed offline transaction string into a machine-readable format selected from a QR code, NFC payload, or short-range wireless protocol transmission.
However, Arora does teach printable formats (See Arora in [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Jiang to include "machine-readable formatting", as taught by Arora, because special formatting secures the transmission of data between devices.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, the claims recite similar limitations to claim 1, thus each claim is also rejected over Jiang, in view of Arora.
Regarding Claim 2, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the signed offline transaction string is received at the second electronic device from the first electronic device using direct communication between the first and the second electronic device (See Jiang in [0101]).
Regarding Claim 4, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches forming a graphical representation of the signed offline transaction string, and printing the graphical representation of the signed offline transaction string (See Arora in [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Jiang to include "graphical representation", as taught by Arora, because special formatting secures the transmission of data between devices.
Regarding Claim 5, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 4. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the graphical representation is a barcode (See Arora in [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Jiang to include "machine-readable formatting", as taught by Arora, because special formatting secures the transmission of data between devices.
Regarding Claim 6, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the offline transaction string is further formed based on a payment condition (See Jiang in [0080] and [0089]).
Regarding Claim 7, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 6. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the payment condition is time-based (See Jiang in [0080] and [0089]).
Regarding Claim 10, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the offline transaction string is further formed based on an identity of the second user (See Jiang in [0099]).
Regarding Claim 12, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 11. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the identity of the first user is validated at the transaction server using the public key for the first user (see Jiang in [0124]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 13, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 11. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the offline transaction string is further formed based on a payment condition, and wherein the step of transferring the amount of funds to the second user is only performed if the payment condition is fulfilled (see Jiang in [0124]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 15, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 11. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the identity of the first user is a verifiable identity (See Jiang in [0106]).
Regarding Claim 21, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches encoding the signed offline transaction string into a machine-readable format selected from a QR code, NFC payload, or short-range wireless protocol transmission. (See Arora in [0025])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Jiang to include "machine-readable formatting", as taught by Arora, because special formatting secures the transmission of data between devices.
Regarding Claim 22, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the offline transaction string includes a condition specifying a time period within which the transaction must be submitted to the transaction server. (“If the account management system 130 determines there is a time-based rule for locking or unlocking a portion of the balance of funds, the method 450 proceeds to block 550 in Figure 5. In block 550, the account management system 130 determines the available funds for the pre-defined time period.” See Jiang in at least [0082])
Regarding Claim 23, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, further teaches wherein the transaction server rejects the signed offline transaction string if received after expiration of a validity condition included in the signed offline transaction string. (“In this example, the balance certificate 113 is valid for only a single transaction or for only a short amount of time (for example, long enough to only complete one offline transaction). After a single offline payment transaction is completed, or after the expiration of the time available for the balance certificate 113, the user is required to request a new up-to-date balance certificate 113.” See Jiang in [0080])
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Arora, and further in view of US 2013/0282590 (hereinafter "Rajarethnam").
Regarding Claim 8, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, does not expressly teach wherein the offline transaction string is further formed based on a preselected encryption scheme.
However, Rajarethnam does teach an encryption scheme ("Payer device 130 may be implemented in a same or similar manner as user device 110 described above. Payer device 130 may include a cryptography application 136, one or more cryptographic keys 138, one or more browser applications 140, one or more toolbar applications 142, a PSP client application 144, other applications 146, and a user identifier 148, all of which may be implemented in a same or similar manner as various corresponding applications, data, and other hardware/software components of user device 110. In one embodiment, cryptographic key 138 may be a public key of a user of a payment service provider, and cryptography application 136 may be configured to encrypt data using public-key cryptography such as the RSA algorithm." See Rajarethnam in [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Jiang to include "a cryptographic scheme", as taught by Rajarethnam, because special formatting secures the transmission of data between devices.
Regarding Claim 9, Jiang, in view of Arora, in view of Rajarethnam, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, in view of Rajarethnam, further teaches wherein the preselected encryption scheme is based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) (replacing with RSA, See Rajarethnam in [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace "Elliptic Curve Cryptography", as recited in the claim, with "RSA (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman) cryptography", as taught by Rajarethnam, because the encryption algorithm does not change or add value to the process of adding security to the transmission of data.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Arora, and further in view of US 2018/0232732 (hereinafter "Rodrigues").
Regarding Claim 24, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, does not expressly teach detecting, at the first electronic device, that the first electronic device does not possess the network connection.
However, Rodrigues does teach detection of an offline mode (interpreting the detection to turn on the offline mode: “[0007] In one broad form the present disclosure seeks to provide a method for performing a transaction, the method including using a system including a payee client device, a payer client device and at least one payment processing device and wherein the method includes: [0008] a) in an offline mode: [0009] i) having the payee and payer client devices communicate to determine transaction details including at least a transaction amount; [0010] ii) in a payer payment application executed by the payer client device” See Rodrigues in [0007]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Jiang to include "a cryptographic scheme", as taught by Rodrigues, because special formatting secures the transmission of data between devices.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Arora, and further in view of US 2003/0069858 (hereinafter "Kittlitz").
Regarding Claim 25, Jiang, in view of Arora, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jiang, in view of Arora, does not expressly teach determining, at the transaction server, whether the signed offline transaction string has previously been processed or corresponds to already transferred funds.
However, Kittlitz does teach using the signatures to determine if the transaction string has a signature (“The transfer request is cryptographically signed by the source party using its private key, and specifies the identities of the party or parties to whom funds should be transferred. This request is processed by a transaction server, which verifies the cryptographic signature by obtaining the source party's public key from a key server. The transaction server than carries out the funds transfers to all target parties, and issues cryptographically-signed receipts to all parties involved.” See Kittlitz in [0025])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Jiang to include "signature verification", as taught by Kittlitz, because it is secure to use the security of the bank system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR R. MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/ERM/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights