DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s response filed 9/17/2025.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borhan (US 20130218721 A1) in view of youtube.com "Checking Out with Virtual Card Numbers From Eno | Capital One", hereinafter Eno, in view of Rule (US 20200250672 A1), and further in view of Collings (US 20190208168 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Borhan teaches:
A method of determining verification information, comprising:
determining, via the user device, one or more characters in the captured image indicate a portion of at least one stored virtual credit card number associated with a user, wherein each of the at least one stored virtual credit card number comprises a tokenized credit card payment account number (PAN); {[0135] “As shown in FIG. 9A, when the smart finger tip is on, the TVC may detect a human finger tip 912 in the reality scene, and detect an object that the finger tip is pointing at, e.g., 911. In this case, the TVC may determine the finger pointed rectangular object is a payment card with a card number printed thereon. Upon performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the payment card […]”}
The card number being a tokenized credit card payment account number (PAN) is not given patentable weight. It is outside the scope of the claimed method because it does not affect any of the claimed method steps.
[…] determining, via the user device, a […] virtual credit card number associated with a user and the merchant from a plurality of virtual card numbers having associated service provider identifiers, wherein the plurality of virtual card numbers and the associated service provider identifiers are stored locally on the user device; {[0135] “Upon performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the payment card, the TVC may determine whether the payment card matches with an account enrolled in the user's wallet, e.g., a "Fidelity Visa *1234" account 913. The user may tap on the displayed option buttons 914a-b to indicate whether the TVC's card recognition result is accurate.”}
“Associated with a user and the merchant” and “having associated service provider identifiers” are not given patentable weight because they don’t affect the step determining a rest of the virtual credit card number and merely state the existence of data which is not used in the method.
displaying, via a display of the user device, an overlay of any one or a combination of at least a portion of the determined virtual credit card number and the verification data, {[0155] “With reference to FIG. 15C, if the user selects equal share, the TVC may capture the card data and prompt a message 1531 showing payment information”; Figure 9C}
PNG
media_image1.png
541
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the user device is a wearable device; and {[0228] “In some implementations, the user may use smart glasses [user device] 3001 in order to use AR overlay view”}
capturing, via the at least one camera of the user device, one or more user input associated with the overlay; and
based on the captured one or more user input, transmitting to the access device any one or the combination of at least a portion of the determined virtual credit card number or the verification data, wherein the access device is configured to initiate a transaction based on the transmitted combination. {[0263] “In some implementations, the user may be able to select [receiving user input] which of the data fields and their associated values should be transmitted to facilitate [perform] the purchase transaction, thus providing enhanced data security for the user.”}
Wherein the first device is configured to perform a transaction based on the transmitted combination is not given patentable weight because it is not a step, nor does it modify the performance of any claimed step. However, it is nonetheless taught by the cited portion of Borhan.
Borhan does not teach performing the above card recognition process on an image of a merchant site. However, Eno teaches:
capturing, via a user device, an image of a merchant site by at least one camera of the user device, wherein
the merchant site is displayed on a display of an access device,
the merchant site is associated with a merchant;
[…] such that the overlay is overlaid on the image of the merchant site displayed via the display of the access device; {Eno 0:17}
PNG
media_image2.png
722
1279
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The above screenshot shows an image of a merchant site with a virtual credit card. A user wearing the smart glasses of Borhan would cause the above step to be performed merely by looking at a device displaying this screenshot, and they would be motivated to do so in order to use the virtual credit card. The overlay of Borhan Figure 9 A-C would then be overlaid on the image of the merchant site.
Borhan in view of Eno does not teach, however Rule teaches:
upon determining the virtual credit card number associated with the user and the merchant, retrieving verification data associated with the determined virtual credit card number from a secure database, the verification data including one or both of a card verification value associated with the determined virtual credit card number or an expiration date associated with the determined virtual credit card number from a secure data storage; {claim 8 “A method, comprising: […] receiving, by the application executing on the processor circuit, an expiration date associated with the virtual account number and a card verification value (CVV) associated with the virtual account number” and claim 13 “The method of claim 8, the expiration date and the CVV comprising one or more of: […] an expiration date and a CVV of the contactless card received [retrieving] from an account database [secure data storage].”}
Borhan teaches manually entering the CVV and expiration date of the card ([0137] “the TVC may request a user to enter information that is not available upon scanning the captured scene, such as the CVV code 925, etc.”), while Rule teaches retrieving this data from an account database.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the manual entry of Borhan in view of Eno with the account database retrieval of Rule because it would reduce the manual work done by the user. Since the data obtained is the same, the result of such a modification to Borhan in view of Eno would have been predictable.
Borhan in view of Eno in view of Rule does not teach, however Collings teaches:
based on the portion of the at least one stored virtual credit card number, determining, via the user device, a rest of the virtual credit card number associated with a user and the merchant from a plurality of virtual card numbers having associated service provider identifiers, wherein the plurality of virtual card numbers and the associated service provider identifiers are stored locally on the user device; {[0056] “A self-correcting license plate reading system can be included to compare license plate reads to a list of known resident plates. The system could employ neural or fuzzy logic systems to determine license plate numbers […] when the camera's view of a license plate is partially obstructed. If such a match is found, then the system can auto correct the number using OCR”}
Collings teaches an OCR system which can determine a full license plate number based on a camera capturing a portion on a license plate by comparing to a database of plates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this same OCR technique to the OCR card reading device of Borhan in view of Eno in view of Rule so that the system can determine the matching card number even if the view is partially obstructed.
Regarding claim 2
Borhan teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a virtual reality (VR) device. {[0228] “In some implementations, the user may use smart glasses 3001 in order to use AR overlay view”}
Regarding claim 3
Borhan teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the one or more user input associated with the overlay further comprises:
detecting, via one or more processors, a gesture provided by the user using the user device. {[0494] “detecting a user transaction command within the live visual capture of the reality scene for payment from the first financial account to the second financial account;”; [0507] “wherein the user transaction command comprises a fingertip motion of moving from the first object to the second object.”}
Regarding claim 4
Eno teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the access device provides a connection to the merchant site. {Eno 0:17 screenshot above}
The computer screen of Eno shows a merchant site. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person wearing the smart glasses of Borhan to look at the screen of Eno in order to use the virtual card.
Regarding claim 5
Borhan teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to determining the card verification value and the expiration date, authenticating, via one or more processors, the user via the user device based on identification information of the user. {[0265] “For example, the user may need to present him/her-self via a video chat, e.g., 3722. In some implementations, a customer service representative, e.g., agent 3724, may manually determine the authenticity of the user using the video of the user. In some implementations, the TVC may utilize face, biometric and/or like recognition (e.g., using pattern classification techniques) to determine the identity of the user.”}
Borhan does not teach performing this step prior to determining. However, there is no unexpected result from authenticating the user prior to determining the values and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so.
Regarding claim 6
Borhan teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein authenticating the user via the user device based on identification information of the user comprises:
obtaining, via the user device, the identification information from the user; and
comparing the obtained identification information with stored identification information.
See claim 5. Borhan does not explicitly teach comparing the biometric data obtained from the user to stored data, but doing so is implied by the fact that the biometric data is being collected from the user and used to authenticate them.
Regarding claim 7
Borhan teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the obtained identification information comprises a biometric feature of the user, and wherein the stored identification information comprises a stored biometric feature of the user.
See claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 8
Borhan teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the displaying the overlay comprises:
displaying any one or a combination of at least the portion of the determined virtual credit card number, the determined card verification value associated with the virtual credit card number, and the determined expiration date associated with the virtual credit card number in an augmented reality session. (Borhan [0210] “In some implementations, TVC may provide the information via an AR overlay”.)
Regarding claim 9
Borhan teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the displaying any one or a combination of at least the portion of the determined virtual credit card number, the determined card verification value associated with the virtual credit card number, or the determined expiration date associated with the virtual credit card number in the augmented reality session comprises:
receiving a current image of the merchant site captured by the at least one camera of the user device;
See claim 1 obtaining step.
determining a first portion of the current image associated with the at least the portion of the determined virtual credit card number;
determining a second portion of the current image associated with the determined card verification value;
determining a third portion of the current image associated with the determined expiration date; and
overlaying the first portion of the current image with an image of the at least the portion of the determined virtual credit card number, the second portion of the current image with an image of the determined card verification value, and the third portion of the current image with an image of the determined expiration date. {Figure 9a; [0137] “In one implementation, the TVC may automatically recognize card information 924 from OCR the captured scene, including card type, cardholder name, expiration date, card number, and/or the like. In another implementation, the TVC may request a user to enter information that is not available upon scanning the captured scene, such as the CVV code 925, etc.”}
PNG
media_image3.png
760
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 9A above shows a first portion of the image determined and an overlay of at least a portion of the determined card number. It does not show the same for the CVV and expiration date. However, [0137] implies doing the same for the CVV and expiration date.
Regarding claim 10
Rule teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the card verification value associated with the virtual credit card number and the expiration date associated with the virtual credit card number comprises:
retrieving the card verification value and the expiration date from an account institution secure database based on the virtual credit card number. (Rule claim 8 “A method, comprising: […] receiving, by the application executing on the processor circuit, an expiration date associated with the virtual account number and a card verification value (CVV) associated with the virtual account number” and claim 13 “The method of claim 8, the expiration date and the CVV comprising one or more of: […] an expiration date and a CVV of the contactless card received [retrieving] from an account database [account institution secure database].”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the OCR or manual entering of Borhan with the account database retrieval of Rule for the same reasons given with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 11-19
Claims 11-19 are substantially similar to claims 1-8 and 10, respectively, and are treated the same with respect to prior art rejections.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borhan in view of Eno in view of Rule in view of Collings as applied to claims 1-19 above, and further in view of Lin (US 9043349 B1).
Regarding claim 20
Borhan teaches:
A method of determining verification information, comprising:
authenticating, via the one or more processors, a user accessing the determined merchant site via the access device;
See claim 5 rejection above.
determining, via the user device, one or more characters in the captured image indicate a portion of at least one stored virtual credit card number associated with a user;
See claim 1 “determining… one or more characters” step.
based on the portion of at least one stored virtual credit card number, determining, via the one or more processors, a rest of the virtual credit card number associated with the user and the merchant from a plurality of virtual card numbers having associated service provider identifiers, wherein the plurality of virtual card numbers and the associated service provider identifiers are stored locally on the user device;
See claim 1 “determining… a rest of the virtual credit card number” step.
upon determining the virtual credit card number associated with the user and the merchant, determining, via the one or more processors, a card verification value associated with the determined virtual credit card number and an expiration date associated with the determined virtual credit card number from a secure database; and
See claim 1 “retrieving verification data” step.
displaying, via a display of the user device, an overlay of any one or a combination of at least a portion of the determined virtual credit card number, the determined card verification value associated with the virtual credit card number, or the determined expiration date associated with the virtual credit card number such that the overlay is overlaid on the image of the merchant site displayed via the display of the access device.
See claim 1 displaying step.
wherein:
the merchant site is displayed on a display of the access device,
the user device is a wearable device, and
the merchant site is associated with a merchant;
See similar limitation in claim 1.
As discussed above regarding claim 1, Borhan in view of Eno teaches obtaining an image of a merchant site. Borhan in view of Eno does not teach determining the merchant site. However, Lin further teaches:
determining, via one or more processors, a merchant site of a merchant based on: (1) an image of the merchant site captured by at least one camera of a user device or (2) information transmitted by a access device including an indication of the merchant site of the merchant, {column 6 line 40 “In an augmented reality (AR) application, a computing device can be trained to be interested in actionable text entity types, such as phone numbers, URLs, and email addresses. For example, if a string appears to be a phone number (based on the number and percentage of the digits in the string certain characters will be replaced based collected confusion patterns, such Z.fwdarw.2, O.fwdarw.0, and so on. The recognized text can then be provided to an application executing on the computing device corresponding to the text entity type for use by the application. In the example above, based on the pattern, the computing device can determine that the test entity type is a phone number, recognize the text using the recognition process described above, and provide the number to a phone application for calling the number. Other text entity types can also be used as described or suggested elsewhere herein.”}
Lin teaches augmented reality device functionality of recognizing certain text such as URLs. This functionality added to the augmented reality device of Borhan would cause it to recognize the URL of Eno (see screenshot above regarding claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the text recognition AR device of Lin with the AR device of Borhan because it would give the additional functionality of recognizing different text types and provide them to applications.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 103
Applicant has amended claim 1 to require the user device to determine a complete card number based on only a portion of the card number captured by the user device and argues this is not taught by the cited references. Examiner agrees. However, Collings et al. has been added as a reference. Collings teaches a license plate reader system which can determine a full license plate number even when a camera captures only a portion of the license plate number. It would have been obvious to combine this technique with the previously cited references in order to realize the same benefit with respect to card numbers.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gillum (US 20070288575 A1) teaches:
[0020] “In one embodiment, the technology supplies relevant email addresses to be utilized to auto complete and/or auto correct entries made in email messages, supplanting or supplementing email messages in a user address book.”
Owens (US 20110093789 A1) teaches:
[0037] “In one embodiment, the email addresses displayed by the autocomplete information display area 320 are email addresses that have been previously stored by the user”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30 pm - 8:30 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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. 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.
/S.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698