Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Amendment filed on October 17, 2025.
Claim 20 is cancelled.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20251202 for references purposes only.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stanev (US 11,341,504), in view of Mullins et al. (US 11,238,441), and further in view of Mani et al. (US 2020/0117336).
Claims 1, 8, 15
Stanev discloses:
receive an indication that a predetermined period-of-time has lapsed (expiration of predefined period of time, see C11 L52-67) from a first time at which a payment card communicated with a mobile computing device (transaction attempted with temporary administrator, see C11 L52-67);
receive, in response to receiving the indication, a second request to initiate a security profile (settings of a profile, see C7 L34-58, C11 L35-51) among 3a plurality of security profiles (e.g. parents, children, see C7 L34-58) for the payment card (account, see C7 L34-58);
in response to authenticating the second request, initiate the modified security profile (e.g. children, see C7 L34-58) for the payment card by modifying a restriction on interactions that may be made with the payment card, wherein modifying the restriction on the interactions comprises modifying an allowed time (time of day, see C13 L33-45) to perform the interactions, modifying a location (whether to approve/deny future transactions based on location, e.g. same merchant, XYZ store, see C14 L39 – C15 L14) within which to perform the interactions, and modifying a list of allowed entities (merchants, e.g. movie theater, internet café, gaming café, see C14 L39 – C15 L14) with which the interactions are allowed to be performed, wherein modifying the allowed time to perform the interactions comprises indicating (i) a first timeframe within a day in which the interactions are allowable (transaction automatically approved when predetermined condition such as time of day is satisfied, e.g. school cafeteria during lunch time on a weekday, see C4 L41-51, C12 L3-29), (ii) a second timeframe within the day in which the interactions are not allowable (policy that a particular transaction is automatically denied based on a time of day, see C7 L59 – C8 L20), and (iii) a third timeframe within the day in which the interactions are only allowable after an enhanced authentication operation (whether receive response from the administrator within a predetermined amount of time, see C17 L1-13, claim 6), and wherein the second timeframe is applicable to more than one day and describes an initial time and a terminating time during which the interactions are not allowable during the more than one day (policy that a particular transaction is automatically denied based on a predetermined condition such as a time of day, inherent that a “time of day” has an initial time and terminating time, see C7 L59 – C8 L20);
receive, in response to modifying the restriction on the interactions that may be made with the payment card, the first request (transaction request, see C13 L3-14) from a point of sale device (point of sale, see C12 L55-67) to authorize a transaction by the payment card with the modified security profile (profile associated with the regulated account, see C13 L15-32);
determine that the transaction by the payment card is not authorized by the modified security profile (whether predetermined condition(s) is satisfied based on policy associated with account, see C7 L59-67); and
transmit a notification to the point of sale device (physical point of sale, see C10 L49-67) rejecting (declined, denial, see C9 L1-10, C10 L49-67) the transaction.
Stanev does not disclose:
Independent… transaction;
On behalf… profiles;
Receive… profiles;
Authenticate… gestures;
By modifying… card.
Mullins teaches:
independent from receiving a first request to authorize a transaction (request to edit an authentication credential, see C11 L34-40);
on behalf of a single user (customer, see C5 L39-60), the second request comprising a request for a gesture (authentication credential, see C10 L39-63) corresponding to one or more security profiles (profiles, see C10 L64 - C11 L17) of the plurality of security profiles;
receive a particular gesture (e.g. PIN 5, see C11 L18-33) in response to the second request, wherein the particular gesture involves a non-hand gesture (i.e. entering PIN) of the single user and corresponds with a modified security profile (profile “Groceries”, see C11 L18-33) of the plurality of security profiles;
authenticate the second request (applies account parameter to transaction request, see C13 L6-20) to initiate the modified security profile by comparing the particular gesture to one or more predefined gestures associated with the plurality of security profiles (account profiles, e.g. groceries, gas, entertainment, see C8 L56-67, figure 5), wherein each security profile of the plurality of security profiles has associated with it a different predefined gesture (credentials: PIN, fingerprint, face/voice recognition, behavioral characteristic, signature, e.g. “PIN 5” used for “Groceries”, see C8 L37-55, C11 L18-33, figure 5) of the one or more predefined gestures;
by modifying a card number (edit debit card, see figure 6) associated with the payment card, and by modifying an account (customize payment card accounts, e.g. usage limits, see C5 L1-12) associated with the payment card.
Stanev discloses receiving an indication that a predetermined period-of-time has lapsed, receiving a request to initiate a modified profile, initiating the modified profile, receiving a request to authorize a transaction, determining that the transaction is not authorized, and transmitting a notification rejecting the transaction. Stanev does not disclose independent from receiving a first request, a request for a gesture, receiving a particular gesture, comparing the gesture to predefined gestures, and modifying a card number and account, but Mullins does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the realtime financial transaction approval of Stanev with the independent from receiving a first request, a request for a gesture, receiving a particular gesture, comparing the gesture to predefined gestures, and modifying a card number and account of Mullins because 1) a need exists for charging protections and controlling purchases (see Stanev C1 L5-15); and 2) a need exists for customizing authentication credentials for a payment card (see Mullins C1 L20-35). Independent from receiving a first request, a request for a gesture, receiving a particular gesture, comparing the gesture to predefined gestures, and modifying a card number and account allows for customized authentication credentials.
Stanev in view of Mullins does not disclose:
Wherein each… device.
Mani teaches:
wherein each gesture of the one or more predefined gesture comprises a different hand gesture (hand gestures, see [0044]) on a camera (camera, see [0044]) of a mobile computing device.
Stanev in view of Mullins discloses independent from receiving a first request, receiving an indication that a predetermined period-of-time has lapsed, receiving a request to initiate a profile, a request for a gesture, receiving a particular gesture, initiating the modified profile, receiving a request to authorize a transaction, comparing the gesture to predefined gestures, modifying a card number and account, determining that the transaction is not authorized, and transmitting a notification rejecting the transaction. Stanev in view of Mullins does not disclose different hand motions on camera, but Mani does. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of different hand motions on camera would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of different hand motions on camera, as taught by Mani, to the different gestures used for authentication, as taught by Stanev in view of Mullins, would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate different gestures for authentication into similar systems (KSR Rationale D).
Claims 2, 9, 16
Furthermore, Stanev discloses:
the modified security profile for the payment card is configured to block transactions during a specified time interval (time of day, see C7 L59-67).
Claims 3, 10, 17
Furthermore, Stanev discloses:
the modified security profile for the payment card is configured to block transactions based on a geographical position (geographical location, see C7 L59-67) of a device attempting to execute a transaction with an account associated with the payment card.
Claims 4, 11, 18
Furthermore, Stanev discloses:
the modified security profile for the payment card is configured to track a pre-defined spending limit (monetary amount of transactions in a given time period, e.g. below $100, see C8 L1-20) for an account associated with the payment card while the modified security profile is active.
Claims 5, 12, 19
Furthermore, Stanev discloses:
the modified security profile for the payment card is configured to implement dual-factor authentication (two-factor authentication, see C3 L66 – C4 L8) for transactions with an account (parent, see C4 L1-40) associated with the payment card (payment card assigned to a child, see C4 L1-40).
Claims 6, 13
Furthermore, Stanev discloses:
the modified security profile for the payment card is configured to block transactions by the payment card with pre-defined entities (a seller, e.g. XYZ store, see C4 L41-51, C7 L59-67, C15 L3-29).
Claims 7, 13
Furthermore, Stanev discloses:
the modified security profile for the payment card is configured to block cash withdrawals (withdraw money from ATM, see C10 L49 – C11 L34).
Claim 14
Furthermore, Stanev discloses:
receiving the request to initiate a modified security profile for the payment card comprises an indication from a smartphone (transaction interface can include smart phones, see C5 L8-22) of a user that the smartphone is no longer electronically paired (device type, see C7 L34-58) with the payment card.
Claim 21
Furthermore, Mullins teaches:
each predefined gesture of the one or more predefined gestures associated with the plurality of security profiles is performable only by the single user (customer, see C5 L39-60) to facilitate authentication of the request.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amendments.
Examiner disagrees. Stanev discloses receiving an indication that a predetermined period-of-time has lapsed (expiration of predefined period of time, see C11 L52-67) from a first time at which a payment card communicated with a mobile computing device (transaction attempted with temporary administrator, see C11 L52-67). Mullins teaches the particular gesture involves a non-hand gesture (i.e. entering PIN) of the single user and corresponds with a modified security profile (profile “Groceries”, see C11 L18-33) of the plurality of security profiles.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.
Prosecution Insights