DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s response filed January 8, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally filed 8/17/2022. Claims 1-20 were canceled and claims 21-40 were added in a preliminary amendment filed 12/13/2022.
Claims 21, 27, 28, 31, 37, 38, 39 are currently amended.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending.
Claims 21-40 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 U.S.C. § 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 21-40 falls within one of the four statutory categories. Each of claims 31-40 falls within the category of process; each of claims 21-30 falls within the category of machine.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea of authorizing a card transaction (a commercial interaction). The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
An apparatus comprising:
memory to store instructions; and
one or more processors, coupled with the memory, operable to execute the instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
display, on a display associated with the apparatus, an option to configure a single tap by a contactless card;
receive input configuring the single tap by the contactless card for a card payment of a specific payment amount;
send the single tap configuration associated with the contactless card to a backend server;
after the single tap configuration is sent, detect, via a communication interface, a contactless card;
receive, via the communication interface, a link and an authentication payload from the contactless card, wherein the link specifies a location to authenticate the authentication payload;
send the authentication payload to an authentication server based on the link, and request a card payment for the contactless card, and the authentication server is configured to determine whether the authentication payload is authentic or not; and
receive an indication that the authentication payload is authenticated, and the card payment for the contactless card is processed based on the single tap configuration.
The italicized limitations above recite sending configuration of a payment amount, detecting and receiving information from a card, sending it to a location, and receiving an indication that it was authenticated. This is a commercial interaction of authorizing a card payment.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 21 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are represented by the following bolded limitations:
An apparatus comprising:
memory to store instructions; and
one or more processors, coupled with the memory, operable to execute the instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
display, on a display associated with the apparatus, an option to configure a single tap by a contactless card;
receive input configuring the single tap by the contactless card for a card payment of a specific payment amount;
send the single tap configuration associated with the contactless card to a backend server;
after the single tap configuration is sent, detect, via a communication interface, a contactless card;
receive, via the communication interface, a link and an authentication payload from the contactless card, wherein the link specifies a location to authenticate the authentication payload;
send the authentication payload to an authentication server based on the link, and request a card payment for the contactless card, and the authentication server is configured to determine whether the authentication payload is authentic or not; and
receive an indication that the authentication payload is authenticated, and the card payment for the contactless card is processed based on the single tap configuration.
The first additional element is “An apparatus comprising:
memory to store instructions; and
one or more processors, coupled with the memory, operable to execute the instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:.”
The second additional element is “via a communication interface.”
The third additional element is “authentication server.”
The fourth additional element is “display, on a display associated with the apparatus, an option to configure a single tap by a contactless card;”.
These four additional elements constitute mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer hardware, by requiring that generic computer hardware be used to perform the claimed functions and the configuring of the specific payment amount.
The fifth additional element is “and the authentication server is configured to determine whether the authentication payload is authentic or not.” This is not given patentable weight because it is outside the scope of the claimed apparatus because it does not affect the structure of the apparatus. Additionally, this is explicitly a mental process because it is making a determination.
In view of the above, the four “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the four “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of devices each with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 21 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section.
Dependent Claims 22–30
Dependent claims 22–30 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 21 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 22 recites:
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the location is an application programming interface (API) endpoint.
which merely refines the abstract idea by providing details about the link. Requiring the link to be an API endpoint merely generally links the claim to a computer/internet environment.
Claim 23 recites:
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the link is a uniform resource locator (URL).
which merely refines the abstract idea by providing details about the link. Requiring the link to be a URL merely generally links the claim to a computer/internet environment.
Claim 24 recites:
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the authentication payload is a cryptogram comprising a unique identifier and a counter value.
which isn’t given patentable weight since it claims the content of data with no functional relationship to the steps being performed. The claimed apparatus is merely acting as a middleman to pass the payload to the authentication server.
Claim 25 recites:
The apparatus of claim 24, wherein the cryptogram is encrypted by the contactless card utilizing diversified keys generated by the contactless card.
which merely refines the abstract idea by requiring communication be encrypted.
Claim 26 recites:
The apparatus of claim 24, wherein the counter value is based on a number of read operations performed with the contactless card.
which isn’t given patentable weight because the counter value is merely received and not used.
Claim 27 recites:
The apparatus of claim 21, further comprising the display and an input device, the one or more processors further configured to execute instructions to:
receive, from the authentication server, a message prior to reception of the response, the message comprising an option to determine an amount for the card payment;
display, on the display, the option to determine an amount for the card payment;
receive, by the input device, a user selection indicating a determined amount for the card payment; and
send, to the authentication server, a response message comprising the determined amount for the card payment.
Which is additional steps for entering an amount for the card payment, using an input device and a display. Entering an amount for the card payment is a refinement of the abstract idea of authorizing a card payment. The display and input device are merely generic computer components being used for input/output.
Claim 28 recites:
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein at least a portion of the instructions are implemented as a mobile application.
which requires the apparatus to be mobile, which has no relationship to any functions performed by the device.
Claim 29 recites:
The apparatus of claim 28, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
process a login procedure for the mobile application; and
enable operations to detect, receive, send, and receive upon successful completion of the login procedure; or
prevent the operations upon failure of the login procedure.
which merely refines the mental process by including a login procedure, which is recited at a high level of generality and constitutes a method of managing interactions between people, and adding additional communication steps.
Claim 30 recites:
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the indication indicates that the card payment for the contactless card is for a one-tap preconfigured payment amount.
which is not given patentable weight because it merely specifies the interpretation of the received indication and is not functionally related to the claimed apparatus.
Claims 31–40
Claims 31–40 contain language similar to claims 21–30 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 31–40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 11551200 B1) in view of Mayer et al. (US 20210110441 A1) in view of Modi (US 20180082298 A1).
Regarding claim 21
Cook teaches:
An apparatus comprising:
memory to store instructions; and
one or more processors, coupled with the memory, operable to execute the instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: (Cook column 2 lines 12-17 “Yet another embodiment relates to a contactless card system. The contactless card system may be configured to activate a transaction card. The contactless card system may include a contactless card, a customer device [apparatus], and a card issuer computing system. The customer device includes wireless chip and a processor.”)
after the single tap configuration is sent, detect, via a communication interface, a contactless card; (Cook column 2 line 17 “The wireless chip communicates with a contactless enabled chip on the contactless card in order to receive information stored on the contactless enabled chip in response to the contactless card being placed in close proximity to the wireless chip.”)
receive, via the communication interface, a link and an authentication payload from the contactless card, wherein the link specifies a location to authenticate the authentication payload; (Cook column 2 line 20 “The information stored on the contactless enabled chip includes a NFC tag, which signifies that the tag is transmitted via NFC. In some embodiments, the NFC tag includes a general URL [link] embedded therein. In other embodiments, the NFC tag includes a customer specific URL embedded therein. In some embodiments, the NFC tag includes a password or other customer information [authentication payload] embedded therein.”)
send the authentication payload to an authentication server based on the link, and (Cook abstract “wherein the contactless communication causes access to a web site associated with the URL [based on the link]” column 12 line 6 “In one example, the password is received by the customer device 102 and populated [send] into a field on either a web browser or a mobile application associated with the provider institution.”)
request a card payment for the contactless card, and (Cook column 32 line 33 “At process 926, the card issuer computing system 108 allows the customer access to at least a portion of the online account associated within the transaction card. […] the card issuer computing system 108 may allow the customer to transfer [card payment] money into or out of the online account via the customer device 102 at process 926.”)
the authentication server is configured to determine whether the authentication payload is authentic or not; and
Populating the password into a field on a web browser implies a server determining whether the password is authentic or not. Additionally, the configuration of the authentication server is not given patentable weight because it does not affect the structure of the claimed apparatus.
receive an indication that the authentication payload is authenticated, and (Cook column 13 line 35 “The provider institution computing system 108 may, in response to authenticating the user, allow the customer device 102 to access and display all or part of the user's account.” and column 3 line 19 “receiving, by the mobile device, an indication of an authentication of a customer associated with the transaction card”.)
Cook teaches allowing the customer to transfer money (a card payment), but does not teach receiving an indication that the transfer is processed. However, Mayer teaches:
a card payment for the contactless card is processed […]. (Mayer [0046] “FIG. 21 screen confirming payment made to loan”)
“Wherein the payment is processed automatically by the authentication server…” is not given patentable weight because it describes an action taken by the authentication server and not the claimed apparatus.
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 payment confirmation of Mayer with the money transfer of Cook because it would confirm successful payment and the combination is straightforward with no unexpected result.
Cook in view of Mayer does not teach, however Modi teaches:
display, on a display associated with the apparatus, an option to configure a single tap by a contactless card; {[0015] “FIG. 4 illustrates a depiction of an interface where the consumer may define [configure] restrictions for a transaction device in accordance with exemplary embodiments.”}
PNG
media_image1.png
548
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receive input configuring the single tap by the contactless card for a card payment of a specific payment amount; {[0025] “This information includes authentication credentials, the unique identifier of the device 104B to be authorized, and the restrictions [specific payment amount] to be imposed on the device 104B if authorized. This information may be entered [receive input] into an application at the consumer device 104A. The authentication credentials may be a user name and password, biometric authentication such as a fingerprint, or other information that allows for the consumer 104 to demonstrate that he or she is the owner associated with the payment information to be used by the second device 104B. In this example, the processing server 102 receives the information”; [0045] “For example, the restrictions may include, but not limited to, that transactions must be within a time limit on any future authorization after authorizing the transaction device, transactions must be limited to one or more predetermined merchants, transactions must be equal to or less than a maximum amount per transaction [specific payment amount]”}
Maximum transaction amount (in Fig. 4) reads on specific payment amount.
send the single tap configuration associated with the contactless card to a backend server; {[0025] “In this example, the processing server [backend server] 102 receives the information”}
a card payment for the contactless card is processed based on the single tap configuration. {[0045] “Such restrictions are managed by the restriction controller 262 which determines if the defined restrictions have been exceeded through operation of the device 104A, 104B, 114B. For example, the restrictions may include, but not limited to, […] transactions must be equal to or less than a maximum amount per transaction that the consumer 104 specifies on the consumer device 104A, […]. The restriction controller 262 considers these restrictions and if the restrictions are met or exceeded, the restriction controller 262 deletes the payment information to prevent the device 104A, 104B, 114B from conducting further transactions.”}
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the restriction configuration of Modi to the card transaction method of Cook in view of Mayer because it provides value to cardholders by enabling them to authorize other users of their account with restrictions ([0003] “In other scenarios, a friend or family member of the consumer may be in an urgent need of a method for payment. The consumer may be willing to authorize payment on behalf of the friend or family member, but simply sending payment information to the friend or family member via texts, emails, or other messages exposes the payment information to other forms of abuse and fraud.”).
Regarding claim 22
Cook teaches:
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the location is an application programming interface (API) endpoint.
The URL of Cook which links to a website is interpreted as reading on API endpoint since it defines a way of requesting a resource (a webpage).
Regarding claim 23
Cook teaches:
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the link is a uniform resource locator (URL). (Cook column 2 line 20 “The information stored on the contactless enabled chip includes a NFC tag, which signifies that the tag is transmitted via NFC. In some embodiments, the NFC tag includes a general URL embedded therein. In other embodiments, the NFC tag includes a customer specific URL embedded therein. In some embodiments, the NFC tag includes a password or other customer information embedded therein.”)
Regarding claim 24
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the authentication payload is a cryptogram comprising a unique identifier and a counter value.
The content of the authentication payload is printed matter not given patentable weight because it is the content of information which is only sent/received and is therefore not in a functional relationship with the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 25
The apparatus of claim 24, wherein the cryptogram is encrypted by the contactless card utilizing diversified keys generated by the contactless card.
The content of the authentication payload is printed matter not given patentable weight because it is the content of information which is only sent/received and is therefore not in a functional relationship with the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 26
The apparatus of claim 24, wherein the counter value is based on a number of read operations performed with the contactless card.
The content of the authentication payload is printed matter not given patentable weight because it is the content of information which is only sent/received and is therefore not in a functional relationship with the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 27
Cook does not teach, however Mayer teaches:
The apparatus of claim 21, further comprising the display and an input device, the one or more processors further configured to execute instructions to:
receive, from the authentication server, a message prior to reception of the response, the message comprising an option to determine an amount for the card payment;
display, on the display, the option to determine an amount for the card payment;
receive, by the input device, a user selection indicating a determined amount for the card payment; and
send, to the authentication server, a response message comprising the amount determined for the card payment.
(Mayer Fig. 20)
PNG
media_image2.png
726
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The above figure explicitly teaches “display…” and “receive… a user selection”. Receiving the option and sending the determined amount are at least implied since the screenshot is a mobile app.
Since Cook teaches transferring money, 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 above “amount” entry screen of Mayer to allow the user to specify the amount, and because such combination has no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 28
Cook teaches:
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein at least a portion of the instructions are implemented as a mobile application. (Cook column 6 line 40 “Examples of the customer device 102 include a mobile device”)
Regarding claim 29
Cook teaches:
The apparatus of claim 28, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
process a login procedure for the mobile application; and (Cook column 11 line 62 “The contactless enabled chip 115 may also have a password embedded thereon. The password may be embedded in the tag 193 of the contactless enabled chip 115 such that when the wireless interface 112 interacts with the contactless enabled chip 115, the password gets accessed by the customer device 102. The customer device 102 may then prompt the user to enter the password (e.g., a PIN, a biometric such as fingerprint, voice print, face print, etc.). If the customer enters the right password, then access to the account associated with the card may be permitted.”)
enable operations to detect, receive, send, and receive upon successful completion of the login procedure; or
prevent the operations upon failure of the login procedure. (Cook column 12 line 21 “if the card that is received by the customer does not include a matching passcode or password, registration and activation (or, account access) is denied.”)
Regarding claim 30
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the indication indicates that the card payment for the contactless card is for a one-tap preconfigured payment amount.
The content of the indication is printed matter not given patentable weight because it is the content of information which is only received and is therefore not in a functional relationship with the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claims 31-40
Claims 31-40 are substantially similar to claims 21-30, respectively, and are treated the same with respect to prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112(a)
The rejections are withdrawn due to the amendments to claims 28 and 38.
35 USC § 101
Applicant argues the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea because the claims are not “agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)B). However, that is not an exhaustive list of commercial or legal interactions. Processing a payment is a commercial interaction, as it is at least similar to the intermediated settlement of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The current amendments to claim 21 have not altered this analysis, as they merely require that the payment amount be preconfigured.
Applicant argues claim 21 is not directed to a commercial interaction because it recites an apparatus with a memory and one or more processors which performs various operations. However, this is mere use of generic computer components to perform the commercial interaction.
Applicant argues claim 21 integrates any judicial exception into a practical application because it recites “receive an indication that the authentication payload is authenticated, and the card payment for the contactless card is processed, wherein the payment is processed automatically by the authentication server based on a preconfigured payment amount associated with the contactless card.” Applicant argues this provides a benefit of convenience for the payer since they can make a payment by a single tap of the card without having to enter a payment amount at the time of payment.
However, even if this provides a benefit and is novel / non-obvious, it is not a technical improvement. The alleged benefit is merely that it allows the payer to specify the payment amount at a different time, compared to a conventional authorization process. Such an improvement is not technical in nature and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It is merely an alternative variation of the abstract idea, as it is still directed towards authorizing a payment.
Applicant argues even if there is a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application, there is significantly more and therefore the independent claims satisfy Step 2B of the Alice framework. Applicant points to the steps of receiving an authentication payload and a link specifying the location to authenticate the payload, sending the authentication payload to an authentication server and receiving an indication that the authentication payload is authenticated as constituting “significantly more” because the link and the preconfigured payment amount are unconventional.
However, to constitute “significantly more” they would have to be both unconventional and additional elements. They are not additional elements. The link is merely instructional in nature. It informs the apparatus with whom to communicate in order to authorize the payment. The preconfigured payment amount is merely an unconventional order of steps to perform a card payment. However, reordering the steps of an abstract idea, even if novel / non-obvious, is not enough to make the steps additional elements. The steps are still merely the ordinary communications necessary to authorize a transfer of money from one party to another via a card payment.
Applicant further points to the newly added functions of “display… an option to configure a single tap…”, “receive input configuring the single tap… for… a specific payment amount”, and “send the single tap configuration… to a backend server” as constituting significantly more than the abstract idea. However, configuring a payment amount is still part of the commercial interaction of authorizing a payment. The fact that it is done via a display constitutes mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer.
35 USC § 103
Applicant has amended claim 1 and argues the new features requiring configuration of a specific payment amount which is sent to a backend server, followed by tapping the card and a payment being processed based on the configuration, are not taught by the cited art.
However, the rejection has been amended to include Modi (US 20180082298 A1). Modi teaches configuring “restrictions” in association with a payment device which can include a maximum transaction amount. Configuring the maximum transaction amount reads on the newly added limitations “receive input configuring the single tap… for a card payment of a specific payment amount” and “send the single tap configuration… to a backend server”. Because the restrictions are then applied at the time of a transaction, it also reads on “the card payment… is processed based on the single tap configuration”.
It is noted Modi reads on the claim because the claim language merely requires the card payment be processed “based on” the configuration, which is given a broad interpretation. If the claim were narrowed such that the payment was specifically for the preconfigured amount, and the amount was not received at the time of the card tap, the claim would likely overcome the prior art.
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 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