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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/10/26 has been entered. In view of this RCE, the examiner has withdrawn the previous 101 rejection but maintains the art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al (Mitra hereinafter, US PUB:2016/0267486) in view of Muncey et al (Muncey hereinafter, US PUB: 20160171482) and further in view of HITOSHI (JP 2002324219A).
Re claim 1. Mitra discloses a computer-implemented method for use in facilitating
authentication of a user in connection with a network interaction, the method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device of an issuer, a request to authenticate a user in connection
with a network interaction, the request including an identifier of an account specific to a user and issued by the issuer (see paras 0048, 0052, 0055, 0105, 0130 and figs 2, 6, 22 and 24 read on a card issuer, communication system, and request to authenticate a user subject to a specific account identifier); based on determining that the card is a participant in on-card direct authentication, identifying, by the computing device, a device identifier (ID) specific to the card for the account based on the identifier of the account (see paras 0089, 0109-01111, 0116 and figs 21 and 22 read on a device identifier and communications subject to account identifiers);
transmitting, by the computing device, via wireless communication, through a mobile network to the card based on the device ID specific to the card, an authentication command for
authentication of the user, whereby the card instructs the user to biometrically authenticate at a biometric sensor of the card (see paras 0109-0116, 0121, 0122 and figs 21, 22, and 23 read on card based communications subject to biometric authentication); receiving, by the computing device, via wireless communication, through the mobile network, from the card, a command reply, the command reply including an authentication result based on a comparison between biometric data captured at the card by the user and reference biometric data included in the card (see paras 0109-0116, 0121, 0122, 0130 and figs 21, 22, 23, and 24 read on card based communications and reply subject to biometric authentication); based on the authentication result in the command reply, responding to the request to authenticate, by the computing device, to a merchant plug-in (MPI) computing device, with an authentication code indicative of the authentication result (see paras 0116, 0121, 0122, 0129, 0130, 0134, 0135 and figs 22, 23, 24 and 25 read on card based communications subject to biometric authentication and completion of a network interaction inclusive of a merchant device). Mitra does not explicitly disclose determining, by the computing device, that whether a card specific to the account is a participant in on-card direct authentication, whereby the card is configured for on-card direct authentication;
and illuminating an on-card light-emitting diode (LED). However, HITOSHI discloses determining, by the computing device, that whether a card specific to the account is a participant in on-card direct authentication, whereby the card is configured for on-card direct authentication (see paras 0005-0013. More specifically, “According to a sixth aspect of the present invention, in any one of the first to fifth aspects, the availability information storage device has data on each card in advance, and the registered card is registered in the card authentication system.
According to a seventh aspect of the present invention, in any one of the first to fifth aspects, the availability information storage device registers only data on usable cards for each card as needed. A card authentication system characterized in that: According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a card authentication system which can highly prevent illegal use due to forgery”). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the card authentication system as taught by HITOSHI in the system of Mitra to prevent illegal use due to forgery. Muncey teaches illuminating an on-card light-emitting diode (LED) (see paras 0020, 0032 and fig 1 which reads on device communications, an LED OR LED screen, and flashing or other message to inform a user). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the authentication, payment and device operations of Mitra, the device and LED aspects of Muncey, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both relate to communications, authentication and transactions, with the motivation being to enhance management of a transaction device (see Muncey paras 0003-0004).
Re claim 2. Mitra further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein
the device ID includes a mobile identification number unique to a mobile network adapter of the
card on a mobile network (see paras 0089, 0109-0111, 0116 and figs 21, 22 read on a device identifier and communications subject to account identifiers with unique network communications); and wherein transmitting the authentication command includes transmitting the authentication command, through the mobile network, to the mobile network adapter (see paras 0109-0116, 0121 and figs 21, 22 and 23).
Re claim 3. Mitra further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further
comprising transmitting a network address to the MPI computing device, in connection with the
authentication command, whereby a virtual location associated with a merchant displays a
message, based on the network address, to inform the user to authenticate at the card (see paras 0116, 0121, 0122, 0129, 0130, 0134, 0135 and Figs 22,23,24,25 read on on-card based communications subject to biometric authentication and completion of a network interaction
inclusive of a merchant device. More specifically, paras 0116 and 0117 describe network communications identifying a non-physical location.)
Re claim 4. Mitra further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein responding to the request to authenticate with the authentication code, to the MPI computing device, includes responding to the request to authenticate with the authentication code, to the MPI computing device, via a directory server included in a payment network (see paras 0116,
0121, 0122, 0129, 0130, 0134, 0135 and Figs 22, 23, 24, 25 read on card based
communications subject to biometric authentication and completion of a network interaction
inclusive of a merchant device. More specifically, paras 0116-0117 describe
servers operational within a payment network.)
Re claim 5. Mitra further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, via the payment network, from a merchant
computing device, a request to authorize the network interaction, the request to authorize
including the authentication code (see paras 0116, 0121, 0122, 0129, 0130 and 0134, 0135 and figs 22, 23, 24 and 25); determining, by the computing device, to approve the network interaction based, at least in part, on the authentication code from the request to authorize (see paras 0109-0116, 0121, 0122, 0130 and Figs 21,22,23,24) and transmitting to the merchant computing device, by the computing device, via the payment network, a response to the request to authorize including an approval of the network interaction (see paras 0116, 0121, 0122, 0129, 0130, 0134, 0135 and Figs 22, 23, 24, 25 read on card based communications subject to biometric authentication and completion of a network interaction inclusive of a merchant device. More specifically, para 0134 describes a transaction receipt being sent to the card identifying an approval of network interaction.)
Re claim 17. Mitra does not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein illuminating the on-card LED on the card includes toggling the on-card LED on the card. However, Muncey makes this disclosure (see paras 0020, 0032 and fig 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the authentication, payment and device operations of Mitra, the device and LED aspects of Muncey, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both relate to communications, authentication and transactions, with the motivation being to enhance management of a transaction device (see Muncey paras 0003-0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OJO O OYEBISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm. 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OJO O OYEBISI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights