DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Non-Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s RCE filed October 5, 2025.
Claims 6, 15, and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 17-19 are currently pending.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 17-19 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 5, 2025 has been entered.
Claim/Specification Objections
Claims 4, 13, 19 and the specification are objected to because they use the term “signature free” which should be “signature-free”.
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 1-4, 9-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping (US 20200286071 A1) in view of Wikipedia “Smartphone” in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Official Notice taken in 2/24/25 Office Action and not traversed by Applicant) in view of Vu (WO 2020160326 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Oepping teaches:
A method for secure payment, being applied to a first secure payment module, the first secure payment module provided with a first part, and a mobile terminal provided with a second part matching with the first part, the method comprising: {Fig. 1 card reader 104 reads on first secure payment module, transaction computer / host computer 102 reads on mobile terminal}
PNG
media_image1.png
482
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
detecting whether the mobile terminal is connected with the first secure payment module; {Fig. 6 step 302}
PNG
media_image2.png
599
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note: Oepping uses the term “host computer” to refer to the physical computer and “virtual terminal” to refer to the software on it. Therefore, both read on mobile terminal.
detecting whether the second part engaged with the first part exists, wherein a detection result is used to correspondingly determine whether the mobile terminal is connected with the first secure payment module; {[0049] “The device interface 134 may include ports for attaching external devices, including the card reader [first secure payment module] 104, to the transaction computer [mobile terminal] 102. The device interface 132 may include a USB port [second part].”}
The USB plug/port read on first part / second part. Step 302 reads on detecting they are connected.
acquiring, when the mobile terminal exists, a first user transaction information, and {Fig. 6 step 310}
wherein the first secure payment module is provided with a user input component, to allow a user to input user transaction information through the first secure payment module; {[0033] “The card reader 104 may include a keypad [user input component] that permits card holders to type information, such as a PIN.”}
sending, by the first secure payment module, the first encrypted transaction information to a transaction verification server based on a first hardware interface of the mobile terminal, and receiving a transaction verification result from the transaction verification server, {Fig. 6 step 312-314; [0072] “At step 312, the virtual terminal 105 sends the swipe data to the card issuer”}
the secure payment module and the mobile terminal share a hardware interface […], and the first secure payment module shares a communication module in the mobile terminal; and
Sharing a communication interface is interpreted as requiring that there be only one communication interface for both the secure payment module and the mobile terminal. See figures 3 and 5 of the current application, showing a hardware interface of a mobile terminal, connected to a secure payment module. This is taught by figure 1 of Oepping. See the box bounded by a dotted line, showing one communication interface for both 104 and 102.
determining, according to the transaction verification result, whether a payment operation is to be performed, {Fig. 6 steps 314-316}
Oepping does not teach, however Wikipedia “Smartphone” teaches:
including a 4G module, a WIFI module, a BT module, and a voice module {Page 1 “Smartphones typically […] support wireless communications protocols (such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or satellite navigation).”; Page 10 “The first smartphone with a fingerprint reader was the Motorola Atrix 4G in 2011.”; Page 1 “core phone functions such as voice calls”}
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 modules of Wikipedia with the transaction computer of Oepping because Oepping teaches “the transaction computer 102 may be […] a smart phone.” [0032] and Wikipedia teaches these are common modules in smartphones.
Oepping in view of Wikipedia does not teach, however Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches:
encrypting the first user transaction information to generate a corresponding first encrypted transaction information,
Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches that encrypting transaction related data to provide data security is well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encrypt the swipe data of Oepping in view of Wikipedia for that reason.
wherein the first hardware interface refers to a hardware interface that is unrelated to a payment function,
This limitation is interpreted consistent with specification paragraph [0050] “the first hardware interface may also refer to a hardware interface that has nothing to do with the payment function, that is, sensitive information in in the clear text cannot be obtained through the first hardware interface.” Therefore, this limitation is satisfied by the transaction information being encrypted.
Oepping in view of Wikipedia in view of Admitted Prior Art does not teach, however Vu teaches:
wherein the first part is a casing structure of the first secure payment module, and the second part is a groove structure that is arranged at the mobile terminal and matches with the casing structure of the first secure payment module. {Figure 4, shown below; [0008] “The device side can include one or more device ports (e.g., 1 -10 ports) which hold one or interchangeable modular medical devices. In accordance with various embodiments, each of the device ports may include a slide and lock mechanism which holds in place a modular medical device inserted into the device port. The device ports may also include a device adapter to connect the one or more medical devices to the platform. The device adapter may be a USBC adapter or other type of adapter capable transferring analog or digital information.”; Abstract “The platform may adhere to a smartphone”; [0049] “embodiments include one or more of the following technical effects, advantages, and/or improvements: […] 4) integrating medical monitoring devices with mobile devices;”}
PNG
media_image3.png
527
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
430 reads on groove structure and 420 reads on casing structure. Vu teaches a receiving and protruding element for attaching a USB device to a smartphone. 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 protruding and receiving elements of Vu to the USB card reader and smartphone of Oepping in view of Wikipedia in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art to hold the card reader in place.
Regarding claim 2
Oepping teaches:
The method for secure payment of claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring, when a detection result indicates that the second secure payment module is connected with the first secure payment module, a second encrypted transaction information based on the second secure payment module; wherein the second encrypted transaction information is obtained by encrypting a second user transaction information by the second secure payment module; and{[0033] “The card reader 104 may include a keypad that permits card holders to type information, such as a PIN.”}
The card reader can be considered as the second secure payment module and the keypad as the first secure payment module. The data from the keypad and card reader reads on first and second transaction information, respectively.
correspondingly, the step of sending the first encrypted transaction information to the transaction verification server based on the first hardware interface of the mobile terminal, and receiving the transaction verification result from the transaction verification server, comprising:
sending the first encrypted transaction information and the second encrypted transaction information to the transaction verification server based on the first hardware interface of the mobile terminal, and receiving the transaction verification result from the transaction verification server.
See claim 1 “sending…” step.
Oepping does not teach:
detecting whether a second secure payment module is connected with the first secure payment module;
Oepping teaches a card reader (second secure payment module) including a keypad (first secure payment module). The difference between the claimed invention and Oepping is that Oepping does not teach the card reader and keypad as two separate devices connected to each other and detecting that they are connected. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the card reader of Oepping separate modular parts if it were considered desirable to allow a user to only have the parts needed (suggested by Oepping’s use of “may include”). See MPEP 2144.04 V. C. “Making Separable”.
Regarding claim 3
The method for secure payment of claim 1, wherein the mobile terminal has a plurality of hardware interfaces, and each of the plurality of hardware interfaces is configured to be called by a secure payment module of a corresponding type.
The above is not given patentable weight because it does not contain any method step nor does it affect any of the steps of claim 1. It is additionally noted that in the corresponding apparatus claim (12) the mobile terminal is not claimed and in the corresponding medium claim (18) the hardware interfaces of a mobile terminal does not affect the structure of the computer-readable medium.
Regarding claim 4
Oepping teaches:
The method for secure payment of claim 1, wherein the mobile terminal is allowed to meet a signature-free requirement of daily applications through a configured application processor.
This limitation is interpreted as requiring the payment method of claim to be performed without a signature being provided. Because Oepping does not mention the transaction computer receiving a signature, and because Figure 1 of Oepping does not depict a stylus / signature pad for inputting a signature, Oepping at least implicitly teaches performing the payment process without a user inputting a signature.
Regarding claims 9-13, 17-19
Claims 9, 11-13 are substantially similar to claims 1-4, respectively, and claims 10, 17-19 are substantially similar to claims 1-4, respectively, and are treated the same with respect to prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant has pointed to support in the specification and the new-matter rejection is withdrawn.
35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection has been reconsidered and withdrawn. An objection has been given and an interpretation of the claim is given in the rejection above.
35 USC § 103
Applicant argues Oepping does not teach a groove structure and casing structure and that adding Vu to teach these elements is improper because Oepping teaches away from such a configuration. Applicant states that Oepping teaches away from such a configuration because the card reader of Oepping is impossible to be embedded into the transaction computer. However, this is merely an absence of the claimed feature from Oepping. Oepping does not in any way recommend against the card reader interfacing with the transaction computer via a groove and casing structure.
Applicant argues Oepping fails to mention or teach sharing the hardware interface including 4G module, WIFI module, BT module, and voice module. However, Oepping teaches the transaction computer can be a smartphone, and newly added reference Wikipedia “smartphone” teaches smartphones common include such modules. Sharing the hardware interface is interpreted as meaning that data received from the secure module by the mobile terminal can then be sent out using the shared hardware interface. Sharing these communication modules is taught by Oepping since Oepping teaches data from the card reader being sent to the server via the transaction computer’s connection (see Oepping figure 1).
Applicant argues that the claimed casing and groove structure is not taught by Vu because Vu merely teaches an interlock connection through a slide and lock feature. However, the “groove” and “casing” structures are not given any limiting definitions in the application and are therefore interpreted in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of those terms. A “groove” can be defined as “a long narrow channel” and element 430 in figure 4 of Vu appears to meet that definition, while element 420 reads on the matching casing structure.
Conclusion
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