DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to amendment and response filed on 2/23/26. Claims 1, 11 and 16 were amended. Claim 5 was cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6-16 and 18-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
103: The Applicant’s amendments and argument have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the previous rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot due to RCE filed and substantive amendments. Per example, amended claim 1 recites “storing, by an access device, a single kernel comprising universal interaction functionality corresponding to a universal sub-kernel and a plurality of interaction functionalities that individually correspond to a plurality of sub-kernels, each of the plurality of sub-kernels individually including functionality that corresponds to a respective type of legacy device and a first communication standard, the universal interaction functionality corresponding to a plurality of device types and a second communication standard that differs from the first communication standard” that necessitate an updated search and reconsideration of claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided below that addresses the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 2/23/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200134587 A1 (Rice) in view of US 20140108263 A1 (Ortiz).
As to claim 1,
Rice teaches,
storing, by an access device (FIG. 3, item 110, ¶ 36), a single universal kernel (¶ 62 “PPSE”, para. 154) comprising universal interaction functionality corresponding to a universal sub-kernel (¶ 103 “payment applications”) and a plurality of interaction functionalities that individually correspond to a plurality of sub-kernels (¶ 103 “payment applications”), each of the plurality of sub-kernels individually including functionality that corresponds to a respective type of legacy device (¶ 107) and a first communication standard (para. 40 “interaction technology such as NFC … a mobile device 124, such as mobile phone, may be used as a virtual contactless ID device 120 to initiate contactless transactions and to interact with merchant POI terminals 110”), the universal interaction functionality (¶ 107) corresponding to a plurality of device types (para. 37 “Depending on the types of ID devices 120 supported, one or more contactless interaction channels 140 may be provided to transfer data between the POI terminal 110 and the ID device 120”) ”) and [a second communication standard that differs from the first communication standard],
receiving, by the access device, a first message in a first interaction with a first user device (FIG. 2, item 164, para. 107, 111, 114), the first message comprising a kernel tag (¶ 114),
based on identifying that the first message comprises the universal kernel tag (para. 107-111 “The first File Control Information (FCI) 164 response is provided by the ID device 120 and contains a list of ADF names and kernel ID's … it contains … the Kernel Identifier of the kernel 180 required for the payment application”), processing, by the access device, the first message using the universal sub-kernel of the single kernel (FIG. 3, item 160, ¶ 107, 120-124) [according to the universal interaction functionality corresponding to the second communication standard],
receiving, by the access device, a second message in a second interaction with a second user device (FIG. 3, items 120-124, para. 36), the second message comprising a kernel identifier corresponding to a first sub-kernel of the plurality of sub-kernels, the first sub-kernel corresponding to a first type of legacy device (FIG. 3, item 175, para. 119, 133-139) and the first communication standard (para. 40 “NFC”),
based on identifying that the second message comprises the universal kernel tag (para. 107-111) processing, by the access device, the second message using the first sub-kernel according to first interaction functionality (FIG. 3 item 180, para. 141-142) corresponding to the first type of legacy device (para. 37 “Depending on the types of ID devices 120 supported, one or more contactless interaction channels 140 may be provided to transfer data between the POI terminal 110 and the ID device 120”) and the first communication standard (para. 40).
Rice does not teach,
[storing … universal interaction functionality …, the universal interaction functionality corresponding to …] a second communication standard that differs from the first communication standard,
[based …, processing …] according to the universal interaction corresponding to the second communication standard.
however, Ortiz teaches,
[storing … universal interaction functionality …, the universal interaction functionality corresponding to …] a second communication standard that differs from the first communication standard (para. 208 “a user 10 of a device 102, 202 can enter a merchant premises and begin a purchase negotiation session with a merchant POS device using an application 104 and a Bluetooth … system of the device 102, 202”),
[based …, processing …] according to the universal interaction corresponding to the second communication standard (para. 208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz because secure payment processing improves payment application selection with “provision and unified control of a number of secure applications within a single wallet or other control application”, see Ortiz, ¶ 54.
As to claim 11,
Rice teaches,
an access device (FIG. 3, item 110, ¶ 36) comprising:
a processor (¶ 36);
a computer-readable medium coupled to the processor, the computer-readable medium comprising code that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to (FIG. 3, item 110, ¶ 36).
store a single universal kernel (¶ 62 “PPSE”, para. 154) comprising universal interaction functionality corresponding to a universal sub-kernel (¶ 103 “payment applications”) and a plurality of interaction functionalities that individually correspond to a plurality of sub-kernels (¶ 103 “payment applications”), each of the plurality of sub-kernels individually including functionality that corresponds to a respective type of legacy device (¶ 107) and a first communication standard (para. 40), the universal interaction functionality (¶ 107) corresponding to device types (para. 37) and [a second communication standard that differs from the first communication standard],
transmit, using the universal interaction functionality (¶ 106), to a first user device, a first message associated with a first interaction between the access device and the first user device (FIG. 3, item 162, ¶ 106);
receive, from the user device, a second message of the interaction, the second message comprising a universal kernel tag (FIG. 2, item 164, ¶ 107, 114) [according to the second communication standard],
based on identifying that the second message comprises the universal kernel tag (para. 107-111), process the second message using the universal sub-kernel and according to the universal interaction functionality (FIG. 3, item 160, ¶ 107, 120-124) according to the second communication standard,
transmit, using first interaction functionality corresponding to a first sub- kernel of the plurality of sub-kernels, to a second user device (FIG. 3, items 120-124, para. 36), a third message associated with a second interaction between the access device and the second user device (FIG. 2, item 166, para. 118-119);
receive, from the second user device, a fourth message of the second interaction, the second message comprising a kernel identifier corresponding to the first sub-kernel, the first sub-kernel corresponding to a first type of legacy device (FIG. 3, item 175, para. 119, 133-139);
based on identifying that the second message comprises the kernel identifier (para. 107-111), process the fourth message using the first sub-kernel and according to the first interaction functionality corresponding to the first sub-kernel (FIG. 3 item 180, para. 141-142) and the first communication standard (para. 40) .
Rice does not teach,
[store … universal interaction functionality …, the universal interaction functionality corresponding to …] a second communication standard that differs from the first communication standard (para. 208),
[based …, process the second message …] according to the universal interaction functionality corresponding to the second communication standard (para. 208),
[based …, process the fourth second message …] according to the first interaction functionality corresponding to the second communication standard (para. 208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz because secure payment processing improves payment application selection with “provision and unified control of a number of secure applications within a single wallet or other control application”, see Ortiz, ¶ 54.
As to claim 16,
Rice teaches,
receiving, by a user device from an access device (FIG. 3, items 110, 120, ¶ 36), a first message associated with an interaction between the user device and the access device (FIG. 3, items, 162 ¶ 106), the access device storing a single kernel (¶ 62 “PPSE”, para. 154) comprising a universal interaction functionality (para. 103) corresponding to a universal sub-kernel and a plurality of interaction functionalities that individually (para. 103) correspond to a plurality of sub-kernels (¶ 103 “payment applications”), each of the plurality of sub-kernels individually including interaction functionality that corresponds to a respective type of legacy device (¶ 107) and a first communication standard (para. 40), the universal kernel comprising universal functionality (¶ 107) corresponding to a plurality of device types (para. 37) and [a second communication standard that differs from the first communication standard], wherein the first message is transmitted according to the universal interaction functionality of the universal sub-kernel (¶ 107);
sending, by the user device to the access device (FIG. 3, items 110, 120, ¶ 36),a second message (FIG. 3, item 164, ¶ 107) comprising a universal kernel tag (¶ 113) identifying the universal sub-kernel (FIG. 3, item 164, ¶ 107, 113), wherein sending the second message causes the access device to process the second message [according to the second communication standard] using the universal sub-kernel based on the universal kernel tag received by the access device in the second message (¶ 117-118), wherein the second message lacks a kernel identifier (para. 154-161);
responsive to sending the second message (¶ 118), receiving by the user device, a request for interaction data (FIG. 3, item 166, ¶ 118);
sending, by the user device to the access device, the interaction data, the interaction data corresponding to the universal interaction functionality corresponding to the first sub-kernel (FIG. 3, item 157, ¶ 119, 120-126), the access device processing the interaction data using the universal interaction functionality corresponding to the universal sub-kernel (FIG. 3, item 170, 175, 180, ¶ 133-149) and the second communication standard.
Rice does not teach,
[receiving … corresponding to …] a second communication standard that differs from the first communication standard, [wherein …],
[sending … to process …] according to the second communication standard [using …],
[sending …] according to the second communication standard.
however, Ortiz teaches,
[receiving … corresponding to …] a second communication standard that differs from the first communication standard (para. 208),
[sending … to process …] according to the second communication standard (para. 208),
[sending …] according to the second communication standard (para. 208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz because secure payment processing improves payment application selection with “provision and unified control of a number of secure applications within a single wallet or other control application”, see Ortiz, ¶ 54.
As to claim 2, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rice teaches,
wherein the first user device and the second user device are security cards (FIG. 1, item 120-124, ¶ 36, 39), and the access device is a security card reader (FIG. 1, item 100, ¶ 36).
As to claim 3, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rice also teaches,
wherein the first user device is a personal identification card (FIG. 1, item 120, ¶ 35), the access device is a personal identification card reader (FIG. 1, item 100, ¶ 36), and the method further comprises sending, to the first user device, data associated with a user of the first user device (¶ 35 “an initial identification”).
As to claim 6, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rice also teaches,
determining that the second message received from the second user device (¶ 114) does not comprise a corresponding universal kernel tag (¶ 154-161).
As to claim 7, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rice also teaches,
receiving, by the access device from the first user device, interaction data for processing the first interaction in a format compatible with the first interaction functionality (¶ 13 “a standard EMV Contactless payment transaction protocol”).
As to claim 8, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 7.
Rice does not explicitly teach,
converting the interaction data from the format compatible with the universal interaction functionality to a format that is compatible with a second interaction functionality.
However, Ortiz teaches,
converting the interaction data from the format compatible with the universal interaction functionality to a format that is compatible with a second interaction functionality (¶ 279 “translates into a payment system protocol compatible”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz because secure payment processing improves payment application selection with “provision and unified control of a number of secure applications within a single wallet or other control application”, see Ortiz, ¶ 54.
As to claim 9, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rice does not explicitly teach,
wherein the second message comprising the kernel identifier is received through radio frequency identification (RFID).
However, Ortiz teaches,
wherein the second message comprising the kernel identifier (¶ 266) is received through radio frequency identification (RFID) (¶ 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz because secure payment processing improves payment application selection with “provision and unified control of a number of secure applications within a single wallet or other control application”, see Ortiz, ¶ 54.
As to claim 10, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rice also teaches,
the second user device is a mobile electronic device (FIG. 3, items 120-124, ¶ 41) and the second message comprising the kernel identifier is received through near field communication (NFC) (¶ 40).
As to claim 13, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 11.
Rice also teaches,
wherein processing the first interaction (¶ 117) comprises
Rice does not teach,
routing, from the user device to a server device communicatively coupled to the access device, interaction data for the first interaction.
However, Ortiz teaches,
routing, from the user device to a server device communicatively coupled to the access device, interaction data for the first interaction (FIG. 2, item 112, ¶ 57-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz because secure payment processing improves payment application selection with “provision and unified control of a number of secure applications within a single wallet or other control application”, see Ortiz, ¶ 54.
As to claim 14, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claims 11 and 13.
Rice also teaches,
wherein executing the code further causes the processor to (FIG. 3, item 110, ¶ 36).
Rice does not teach,
receive from the server device, an indication to approve the routed interaction.
However, Ortiz teaches,
receive from the server device, an indication to approve the routed interaction (FIG. 5A, ¶ 143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz because secure payment processing improves payment application selection with “provision and unified control of a number of secure applications within a single wallet or other control application”, see Ortiz, ¶ 54.
As to claim 15, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claims 11 and 13.
Rice also teaches,
wherein executing the code further causes the processor to (FIG. 3, item 110, ¶ 36).
Rice does not teach,
receive from the server device, an indication to deny the routed interaction and responsively terminating the interaction.
However, Ortiz teaches,
receive from the server device, an indication to deny the routed interaction and responsively terminating the interaction (¶ 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz because secure payment processing improves payment application selection with “provision and unified control of a number of secure applications within a single wallet or other control application”, see Ortiz, ¶ 54.
As to claim 18, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 16.
Rice also teaches,
wherein the kernel identifier identifies the first sub-kernel, and wherein the first sub-kernel comprises functionality of a legacy kernel corresponding to the first type of legacy device (para. 106-107).
As to claim 19, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 16.
Rice does not teach,
wherein the interaction data comprises a credential from the user device.
However, Ortiz teaches,
wherein the interaction data (¶ 108 “transaction and other data”) comprises a credential from the user device (¶ 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz because secure payment processing improves payment application selection with “provision and unified control of a number of secure applications within a single wallet or other control application”, see Ortiz, ¶ 54.
As to claim 20, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 16.
Rice also teaches,
the user device (FIG. 3, item 120, ¶ 39) is a card (FIG. 3, item 122, ¶ 39).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Ortiz in further view of US 20190370790 A1 (Spector).
As to claim 12, combination of Rice and Ortiz teach all the limitations of claim 11.
Rice does not teach,
wherein processing the first interaction comprises generating a cryptogram.
However, Spector teaches,
wherein processing the first interaction item comprises generating a cryptogram (FIG. 1, items 120, 124 and 160, FIG. 4, item 410, ¶ 40, 41 and 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment application selection of Rice with secure payment processing of Ortiz with merchant lockbox generated cryptogram of Spector because merchant lockbox generated cryptogram improves payment application selection by “establishing a secure communication channel with the cryptogram lockbox”, see Spector, ¶ 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights