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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 26, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 7. Applicant has cancelled claim 2. Claims 4, and 9-11 were previously cancelled. Claim 5-6 were previously withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 12-15 are now pending from which
1, 3, 7 and 12-15 currently stand rejected.
Claim Interpretation
Intended/Result Language:
Regarding claims 1 and 7:
The portion which recites “said at least one first identifier being used to perform said electronic payment transaction;” is the intended use of the one first identifier. This phrase do not affect how the positively recited steps are performed nor does it provide an operational connection to the rest of the claim.
Non-functional Language:
The portion which recites “without transmitting an entirety of the at least one first identifier from the electronic payment terminal to the till device” is non-functional descriptive material because it described, at least in part, how the at least second identifier is transmitted.
The portion which recites “without requiring the user to provide contact information of the user to the merchant or to the till device for receiving proof of purchase” is non-functional descriptive material because it described, at least in part, how the at least second identifier is transmitted.
These phrases does not affect how the positively recited steps are performed nor does it provide an operational connection to the rest of the claim.
The applicant is reminded that these portions, i.e., intended use/result, do not further limit the scope of the claim as the limitations, or portions thereof, do not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being "for ... [performing a specific functionality]", etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
It has been held that non-functional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Examiner has provided prior art, where available, for these intended use and/or non-functional phrases/limitations, however, these phrases/limitations will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Accordingly, the prior art is only provided in the interest of compact prosecution.
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, 3, 7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1, 3 and 12-15) and a machine (claim 7). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A method implemented by an electronic payment terminal and performing an electronic payment transaction with a bank server via at least one communication network for at least one user of the electronic payment terminal; during the electronic payment transaction
reading through at least one interface of the electronic payment terminal at least one first identifier of said at least one user from at least one electronic payment means of said at least one user, said at least one first identifier being used to perform said electronic payment transaction;
generating at least one datum by applying a cryptographic function to said at least one first identifier such that the user can be identified by using the at least one datum;
generating at least one second identifier of said user, said second identifier comprising the at least one datum and a portion of said at least one first identifier,
and on completion of said electronic payment transaction, the electronic payment terminal transmitting, via a till device of a merchant and using at least one of the at least one communication network, said at least one second identifier to an electronic proof of purchase management device without transmitting an entirety of the at least one first identifier from the electronic payment terminal to the till device and without requiring the user to provide contact information of the user to the merchant or to the till device for receiving proof of purchase.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of generating and transmitting an identifier based on a first received identifier. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes commercial or legal interaction (e.g., receive an identifier e.g., PAN, generate an identifier that contains said PAN and transmitting the generated identifier). Furthermore, Examiner notes that the at least one datum is generated, i.e., applying a cryptographic function. However, this is an abstract idea, i.e., mental process (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concept under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. Further, the claimed recitation of generating is a mental activity that can be performed in human mind with pen and paper. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here claim 7 recites the additional element of an electronic payment terminal, a till device, a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Independent claim 1 recite the additional elements of an electronic payment terminal, a bank server, at least one communication network and a till device. Independent claim 7 recites the additional elements of an electronic payment terminal, at least one interface, at least one transmitter connectable to at least one communication network, a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable and a till device. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner finds no indication that the computer component(s) itself/themselves is/are improved, or that there is an improvement to some other technology. Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of one interface, at least one transmitter, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable, an electronic payment terminal, a bank server, at least one communication network and a till device in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., one interface, at least one transmitter, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable, an electronic payment terminal, a bank server, at least one communication network and a till device) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 3 and 12 – 15 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 15 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that a third identifier is obtained from the bank server. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that an identifier is obtained from a bank. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 further refine the abstract idea by describing the second identifier (e.g., is composed by (IIN) and a (PAN). This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
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, 3, 7, 12 and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (US 2018/0096314 A1), hereinafter “Nair”, in view of Kumnick et al. (US20150199689 A1), “Kumnick”, in view of Sweitzer et al. (US 20150302377 A1) hereinafter “Sweitzer”
Regarding claims 1 and 7: Nair disclose:
Claim 1: A method implemented by an electronic payment terminal and performing an electronic payment transaction with a bank server via at least one communication network for at least one user of the electronic payment terminal; during the electronic payment transaction
Claim 7: An electronic payment terminal (See at least Nair, Fig. 3A; [0028] payment terminal) comprising:
a processor (See at least Nair, [0090] processor); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising (See at least Nair, [0091] non-transitory computer readable medium) instructions
+stored thereon which when executed by the processor configure the electronic payment terminal 4to:
reading through at least one interface of the electronic payment terminal at least one first identifier of at least one user from at least one electronic payment means of said at least one user during an electronic payment transaction made by the at least one user via the electronic payment terminal, said at least one first identifier being used to perform said electronic payment transaction; (See at least Nair, Fig. 5A; Fig. 3A; [0003]; [0008]; [0010]; [0040]; [0051-0052]; reading through at least one interface of the electronic payment terminal (i.e., payment terminal) at one first identifier (i.e., details of the payment instrument (e.g., PAN)) of at least one user (i.e., customer) is obtained from at least one electronic payment means of said one user (i.e., payment) during an electronic payment transaction made by the at least one user via the electronic payment terminal (i.e., customer 354 swipe/dip or tap the card at payment terminal).)
generate at least one second identifier of said at least one user, said second identifier comprising the least one datum and a portion of said at least one first identifier; and (See at least Nair, [0052-0055] where at least one second identifier of the user (i.e., combined data) is generated and said second identifier comprising at least one datum (e.g., IIN/BIN) allowing the user to be identified (i.e., IIN/BIN of the payment instrument and the pairing identifier) and at least one portion of said at least one first identifier (i.e., combined with IIN/BIN of the payment instrument ) )
and on completion of said electronic payment transaction, the electronic payment terminal transmit, via a till device of a merchant and using at least one of the at least one communication network, said at least one second identifier to an electronic proof of purchase management device for managing at least one electronic proof of purchase. (See at least Nair, [0012]; [0040]; [0052-0053]; [0060] combined data is sent to the POS (note that to generate the pairing identifier, payment card details are extracted e.g., IIN/BIN.)
Nair disclose combined data is sent to the POS (note that to generate the pairing identifier, payment card details are extracted e.g., IIN/BIN. (See at least Nair, [0012]; [0040]; [0052-0053]; [0060]) However, Nair does not explicitly disclose transmit, via a till device of a merchant and using at least one of the at least one communication network said at least one second identifier without transmitting an entirety of the at least one first identifier from the electronic payment terminal to the till device and without requiring the user to provide contact information of the user to the merchant or to the till device for receiving proof of purchase.
Kumnick, on the other hand teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention transmit, via a till device of a merchant and using at least one of the at least one communication network said at least one second identifier without transmitting an entirety of the at least one first identifier from the electronic payment terminal to the till device and without requiring the user to provide contact information of the user to the merchant or to the till device for receiving proof of purchase. (See at least Kumnick, [0062]; In some embodiments, the merchant 130 may receive payment information comprising a token and a non-transactable payment account identifier from the consumer 120 (i.e., a payment device operated by the consumer 120) in a payment transaction. After receiving the token and the non-transactable payment account identifier, the merchant 130 may send the token and the non-transactable payment account identifier to the acquirer 135 for payment authorization.)
The combination of Nair and Kumnick disclose the second identifier comprising at least one datum and combined data is generated comprising portion of BIN of the payment instrument. Nair, [0052-0055]. However, Nair does not explicitly disclose generating at least one datum by applying a cryptographic function to said at least one first identifier such that the user can be identified by using the at least one datum; (e.g., digital fingerprint that is the result of application of a cryptographic function such as a hash function).
Sweitzer, on the other hand, teaches generating at least one datum by applying a cryptographic function to said at least one first identifier such that the user can be identified by using the at least one datum;(See at least Sweitzer, [0030]; claim 5. Where second identifier (i.e., pair ID) comprises at least one datum (i.e., a hash of at least a portion of the payment card number).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination that receives payment data, and generates/combines data based on the received payment data and include Sweitzer’s teachings that hashes a portion of the payment card number in order to maintain the identity and user payment information secured before this one is transmitted.
Applicant is reminded that the portion which recites “said at least one first identifier being used to perform said electronic payment transaction;” is the intended use of the one first identifier.
Additionally, the portion which recites “without transmitting an entirety of the at least one first identifier from the electronic payment terminal to the till device” is non-functional descriptive material because it described, at least in part, how the at least second identifier is transmitted.
Furthermore, the portion which recites “without requiring the user to provide contact information of the user to the merchant or to the till device for receiving proof of purchase” is non-functional descriptive material because it described, at least in part, how the at least second identifier is transmitted.
Applicant is reminded that these portions, i.e., intended use/result, do not further limit the scope of the claim as the limitations, or portions thereof, do not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being "for ... [performing a specific functionality]", etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Examiner has provided prior art, where available, for these intended use and/or non-functional phrases/limitations, however, these phrases/limitations will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Accordingly, the prior art is only provided in the interest of compact prosecution.
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Nair, Kumnick and Sweitzer disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the method comprises obtaining a third identifier from a bank server, and said at least one datum comprises a third identifier obtained from the bank server. (See at least Nair, [0033]; [0050]; [0053]; [0063]).)
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Nair, Kumnick and Sweitzer disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose, wherein the second identifier is composed of an Issuer Identification Number (IIN) of a Primary Account Number (PAN). (See at least Nair, [0053-0055] combined data). However, the combination do not explicitly disclose that the second identifier is compose with a digital fingerprint of the PAN.
Sweitzer, on the other hand teaches wherein the second identifier is composed of digital fingerprint of a Primary Account Number (PAN). (See at least Sweitzer, [0030]; claim 5. Where second identifier (i.e., pair ID) digital fingerprint of a Primary Account Number (PAN) (i.e., a hash of at least a portion of the payment card number).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination that receives payment data, and generates/combines data based on the received payment data and include Sweitzer’s teachings that hashes a portion of the payment card number in order to maintain the identity and user payment information secured before this one is transmitted.
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Nair, Kumnick and Sweitzer disclose the electronic payment terminal according of claim 7. The combination further disclose wherein the second identifier is composed of an Issuer Identification Number (IIN) of a Primary Account Number (PAN) and a digital fingerprint of the PAN. (See at least Nair, [0053-0055] combined data). However, the combination do not explicitly disclose that the second identifier is compose with a digital fingerprint of the PAN.
Sweitzer, on the other hand teaches wherein the second identifier is composed of digital fingerprint of a Primary Account Number (PAN). (See at least Sweitzer, [0030]; claim 5. Where second identifier (i.e., pair ID) digital fingerprint of a Primary Account Number (PAN) (i.e., a hash of at least a portion of the payment card number).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination that receives payment data, and generates/combines data based on the received payment data and include Sweitzer’s teachings that hashes a portion of the payment card number in order to maintain the identity and user payment information secured before this one is transmitted.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair, Kumnick and Sweitzer as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Collison (US 11868996 B1), “Collison”.
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Nair, Kumnick and Sweitzer disclose method according to Claim 1. However, the combination do not explicitly disclose; comprising obtaining, from a bank server of a bank of the at least one user, via at least one of the at least one communication network, a temporary single-use identifier for the at least one user.
Collison, on the other hand teaches obtaining, from a bank server of a bank of the at least one user, via at least one of the at least one communication network, a temporary single-use identifier for the at least one user. (See at least Smith, Col. 2 lines 30-34; Col 3 lines 15-19 If authorized, Stripe (300) will generate and return a 15 secure, Single-use Token (350) to the Customer's Browser (210) that represents the customer's payment information (220) but doesn't leak any sensitive information.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Collison’s teachings in order to reduce merchants' exposure to sensitive data. (Collison, Col. 2 line 5).
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Nair, Kumnick and Sweitzer electronic payment terminal according to claim 7. However, the combination do not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further configure the electronic payment terminal to obtain, from a bank server of a bank of the at least one user, via at least one of the at least one communication network, a temporary single use identifier for the at least one user.
Collison, on the other hand teaches obtaining, from a bank server of a bank of the at least one user, via at least one of the at least one communication network, a temporary single-use identifier for the at least one user. (See at least Smith, Col. 2 lines 30-34; Col 3 lines 15-19 If authorized, Stripe (300) will generate and return a 15 secure, Single-use Token (350) to the Customer's Browser (210) that represents the customer's payment information (220) but doesn't leak any sensitive information.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Collison’s teachings in order to reduce merchants' exposure to sensitive data. (Collison, Col. 2 line 5).
Response to Arguments
CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the preceding limitations (e.g., without transmitting an entirety of the at
least one first identifier from the electronic payment terminal to the till device and without requiring the user to provide contact information of the user to the merchant or to the till device for receiving proof of purchase) recite operations of the electronic payment terminal that realize this technical solution. (Amendment, p. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that this limitations are merely intended use and descriptive language.
Applicant argues that the elements (e.g., receive an identifier e.g., PAN, generate
an identifier that contains said PAN and transmitting the generated identifier) are not any the of abstract idea enumerated in 2016 PEG. (Amendment, p. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that receiving, generating and transmitting an identifier can be performed in human mind using pen and paper.
Applicant argues that while the reading is performed by the terminal during a transaction,
reading a user identifier through an interface of an electronic terminal does not recite an abstract
idea of a contract, legal obligation, advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior, or a
business relation. Rather it sets the technical context of the claim. (Amendment, p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. By reading a user identifier using an interface of an electronic terminal is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (e.g., reading information).
Applicant argues that the elements (e.g., generate at least one datum by applying a cryptographic function to said at least one first identifier such that the user can be identified by using the at least one datum; generate at least one second identifier of said at least one user, said second identifier comprising at least one datum and a portion of said at least one first identifier; and), do not recite an abstract idea of a contract, legal obligation, advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior, or a business relation. Furthermore, Applicant argues that, in context of claim 7, these elements therefore cannot be abstracted outside of the terminal and characterized as mere mental steps (they cannot be performed mentally within the recited technical context) or mere mathematical relationships. Instead, these elements help to realize the technical solution recited at the end of the claim in the context of electronic interactions between physical devices. (Amendment, pp.14-15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites how the at least one datum is generated, i.e., applying a cryptographic function. However, this is an abstract idea, mathematical concept under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, the claims indicates that the second identifier comprises one datum and a portion of first identifier. There is no a technical improvement by merely describing the second identifier (e.g., indicating that is combined data).
Applicant argues that claim 7 cannot be abstracted out of the technical environment of the claim in an effort to find a recited abstract idea. (Amendment, p. 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that merely transmitting a specific data is abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the invention recited in claim 7 as amended therefore realizes the solution to the technical problems described above. (Amendment pp. 16-17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely generating and transmitting identifiers is generic computer implementations and do not improve the functioning of the terminal itself.
Applicant argues that claim 1 confines any abstract idea to a particular, practical application of the method in this context. (Amendment, pp 17-18). Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim merely performs data processing (e.g., reading, generating and transmitting identifiers) using conventional components without importing the functioning of the terminal or any undelaying technology.
In response to Applicant’s assertions that similar to the Example 35, 2016 PEG, that the additional elements and the combination of elements recited in Applicants claims 1 and 7 represent significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept as discussed below) because they are a practical implementation of any abstract idea operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way, even if the steps are interpreted to use well-known components (a processor and an interface, etc.). (Amendment, pp. 19-20). Examiner respectfully disagrees because, unlike Example 35, which specifically improves the security of ATM transactions by introducing a multidevice authentication process involving random code generation, encrypted image transmission and decryption steps that prevent unauthorized access, the present claimed invention does not recite any comparable technical mechanism or improvement to system security or functionality.
For these reasons, and the reasons specified above, in the 101 rejection section, the rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that Applicant's claim 1 distinguishes over Nair i) All limitations of claim 1 are implemented by the electronic payment terminal. (Amendment, pp. 23-24). Examiner asserts that Nair described both a payment terminal and an intermediary terminal as components of the same payment system.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection(s) that Nair does not disclose that, on completion of an electronic payment transaction, the payment terminal 212A transmits, via a till device at least one second identifier to an electronic proof of purchase management device without transmitting an entirety of the at least one first identifier from the electronic payment terminal to the till device, as set forth in claim 1 (Remarks, pp. 24-27), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nair, Kumnick and Sweitzer.
Applicant argues that Sweitzer does not disclose or suggest generating a datum of a second user ID by applying a cryptographic function to the claimed first identifier during a payment transaction. (Amendment, p. 28). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sweitzer teaches generating at least one datum by applying a cryptographic function to said at least one first identifier such that the user can be identified by using the at least one datum;(See at least Sweitzer, [0030]; claim 5. Where second identifier (i.e., pair ID) comprises at least one datum (i.e., a hash of at least a portion of the payment card number).)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flitcroft (US 6,636,833 B1): Encryption of limited-use numbers should involve two levels. At the first level, the card numbers are encrypted using an algorithm that acts only to alter the free digits within the credit card. The header sequence (i.e. bin number) is left unaltered or converted into an unused bin number and the checksum recalculated. This prevents any form of brute decryption because there will be no way of telling when the correct algorithm has been selected since each number starts and ends up as a valid looking credit card number. Following this step each number is encrypted with industry standard encryption methods (e.g. RSA or DES). Following decryption within the program the checksum is recalculated for the final number and the appropriate bin number reinserted. Flitcroft, Col 22.
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 KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-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 at (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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights