DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
This Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on 11/25/2025.
Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 12, 13, and 15 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected subject matter.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
The examiner has withdrawn the double patenting rejection with co-pending application 18276549 since claims 8 and 15 of the co-pending application have been cancelled. Since claims 12, 13, and 15 of this pending application are not cancelled, a double patenting rejection of co-pending application 18276549 may still be appropriate.
101
The applicant argues that the claims do not fall under the "Certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas and are instead directed to a specific technological innovation (repurposing UWB communication) to address a technological problem (securely processing payments at a remote location when Internet services are not available) (See arguments/remarks pages 8-10). However the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 as a whole recites a payment device communicating with other devices (e.g. first user device) to perform a payment transaction. The payment device is merely a computer that is being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of sending an initiation message which includes various data elements, receiving a response message within a certain time window, sending transaction information including information for enabling a payment, and receiving payment information corresponding to the transaction information. This abstract idea falls under the category of "Certain methods of organizing human activity" because it deals with "commercial or legal interactions" including "marketing or sales activities or behaviors" since it discloses performing a payment transaction. Further the abstract idea deals with "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" including "social activities" because it discloses performing a payment transaction between 2 parties. The use of UWB ranging is a means for the computers to communicate with each other to perform the abstract idea and is generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 1 is recited at a high level and does not capture the improvement of securely processing payments at a remote location when Internet services are not available. Furthermore, the amendment to claim 1 recites “wherein a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) configuration for the UWB communication is configured to a statis STS, and a value of the static STS is generated based on a vendor identifier and a static STS configuration configured by a UWB command interface (UCI) for a specific payment application”. This is non-functional descriptive material that describes an STS configuration and generation. The limitation is not positively recited as a step/function of the claims and the STS is not used to further limit the claim limitations. In other words, the abstract idea steps/functions of transmitting an initiation message, receiving a response message, transmitting transaction information, and receiving a payment information message are not further limited by the STS. The examiner has considered all of the applicant's arguments and maintains the 101 rejection.
103
The applicant argues that the combination of Lee/Lerch/Kwak does not disclose "wherein a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) configuration for the UWB communication is configured to a statis STS, and a value of the static STS is generated based on a vendor identifier and a static STS configuration configured by a UWB command interface (UCI) for a specific payment application". Specifically the applicant argues that Schober teaching that generation of the STS may be based on a seed value, or the STS key may be combined with a counter, and in addition to the STS keys, the second communication channel may be used to transmit information such as the exact position of the different anchors does not teach or make obvious “a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) configuration for the UWB communication [being] configured to a static STS, and a value of the static STS is generated based on a vendor identifier and a static STS configuration configured by a UWB command interface (UCI) for a specific payment application (See applicant’s arguments/remarks page 13 and 14). However the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the limitation “wherein a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) configuration for the UWB communication is configured to a statis STS, and a value of the static STS is generated based on a vendor identifier and a static STS configuration configured by a UWB command interface (UCI) for a specific payment application” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is non-functional descriptive material that describes an STS configuration and generation. The limitation is not positively recited as a step/function of the claims and the STS is not used to further limit the claim limitations.
Even assuming that the description of the STS configuration and generation does hold patentable weight, Schober does disclose this limitation as written. Schober discloses in sections [0031] and [0040] that a STS generation may be based on a seed value in combination with a counter and that the STS will typically be included in or appended to a UWB frame. Here the seed value used to generate the STS reads on a vendor identifier and the counter reads on a static configuration. As written, the vendor identifier and the static STS configuration are just data labels referring to 2 variables that are used to generate the STS. Therefore, Schober discloses this limitation as written.
The examiner has considered all of applicant’s arguments and maintains the 103 rejection.
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 1-11, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-11, 16, and 17 are directed to a method and claims 14 and 18 are directed to a payment device. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites establishing communication to perform a transaction. Specifically, the claim recites “transmitting… an initiation message…, the initiation message including a UWB message ID, store information, and contention window information, wherein the UWB message ID indicates an identification of the initiation message, the store information includes a name of a store where the payment device is used, and the contention window information includes a time duration of a contention window; receiving… a first response message in the contention window; transmitting… a transaction information message including enabling payment information for the first user… selected based on the first response message; and receiving… a payment information message corresponding to the transaction information message from the first user…, wherein the payment information message includes a credit card number or link information”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve initiating communication to perform a transaction which falls under the category of commercial/legal interactions including marketing or sales activities/behaviors and managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people including social activities. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)). Claim 14 is directed to a payment device that performs the same functions of claim 1. Therefore Claim 14 is also directed to the abstract idea of establishing communication to perform a transaction.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional element(s) of claims 1 and 14, such as the use of the transceiver, controller, payment device, and user device, merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the transceiver, controller, payment device, and user device perform(s) the steps or functions of establishing communication to perform a transaction. The use of a computer/server as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Further, the use of UWB ranging/communication is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. wireless computer communication) or field of use. Furthermore, the additional element of “wherein a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) configuration for the UWB communication is configured to a statis STS, and a value of the static STS is generated based on a vendor identifier and a static STS configuration configured by a UWB command interface (UCI) for a specific payment application” is non-functional descriptive material that describes an STS configuration and generation. The limitation is not positively recited as a step/function of the claims and the STS is not used to further limit the claim limitations. Therefore the newly added limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by merely describing the STS which is never used within the claims. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a transceiver, controller, payment device, and user device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of establishing communication to perform a transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the transceiver, controller, payment device, and user device perform(s) the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of establishing communication to perform a transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Further, the use of UWB ranging/communication is recited at a high level and are used for generally linking the use of the judicial exception (e.g. establishing communication to perform a transaction) to a particular technological environment (e.g. wireless computer communication) or field of use and is not indicative of an inventive concept. Further, the use of UWB ranging/communication is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. wireless computer communication) or field of use. Furthermore, the additional element of “wherein a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) configuration for the UWB communication is configured to a statis STS, and a value of the static STS is generated based on a vendor identifier and a static STS configuration configured by a UWB command interface (UCI) for a specific payment application” is non-functional descriptive material that describes an STS configuration and generation. The limitation is not positively recited as a step/function of the claims and the STS is not used to further limit the claim limitations. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-11 and 16-18 further describe the abstract idea. Claim 2 further recites the abstract idea of selecting a first user from a list generated based on position information; claims 3-5 further describes the initiation message; claim 6 further describes the response message; claims 7 and 8 further describe the transaction information message; claim 9 further describes the transaction information message and payment information; claim 10 further describes the payment information message; claim 11 further describes the UWB communication; claim 16 describes the UWB communication as being an encrypted unicast signal; claims 17 and 18 further recite the abstract idea as receiving a response message from a second user device, determining position information from the response messages, generating a user list based on the position information, and selecting the first user having a payment intent based on the list. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210312424 A1 (“Lee”) and US 20190098499 A1 (“Lerch”) and US 20160081047 A1 (“Kwak”) and US 20210258795 (“Schober”).
Per claims 1 and 14, Lee teaches:
a transceiver (e.g. Accordingly, a UWB chip 108 may include circuitry, a transceiver, an antenna (its own or shared) and storage) (Section [0015] and [0016]);
memory storing one or more computer programs (e.g. The storage 104 can include volatile (e.g., dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), static random-access memory (SRAM)) and non-volatile memory (e.g., flash, magnetic random access memory (MRAM, FeRAM)). Non-volatile memory can be used as persistent memory since non-volatile memory does not require power to maintain the stored information. The memory of storage 104 may be removable or non-removable) (Section [0018]);
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory (e.g. The UWB chip 108 includes UWB hardware (e.g., a UWB device) providing at least a communications interface 112 and sensors 114 for 360-degree spatial positioning. A devoted memory and processor can be included as part of the UWB chip 108) (Section [0015]- [0017]);
transmitting, to the first user device using the UWB communication, a transaction information message including enabling payment information for the first user device selected based on the first response message (e.g. Here, the terminal 215 can communicate transaction information to the UWB-enabled device 210 by sharing (242) transaction related information via the UWB anchor 220. The transaction related information at least includes the amount and merchant information (e.g., merchant name and/or merchant identifier such as a merchant code). In the illustrated implementation, the transaction related information includes, a terminal identifier, EMV data preference, amount, and merchant information) (Section [0027]-[0029]);
receiving, from the first user device using the UWB communication, a payment information message corresponding to the transaction information message from the first user device, wherein the payment information message includes a credit card number or link information (e.g. the payment application 230 creates a new transaction payload, generating (260) the message/data response in the appropriate EMV data format (which may have been indicated as part of the transaction related information received in step 248). This data response is communicated to the terminal 215 via the secure communication channel 222 between the UWB chip 225 and the UWB anchor 220 in steps 262, 264, and 266) (Section [0031]).
Note: the limitation “wherein the payment information message includes a credit card number or link information” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the payment information data and does not affect the claims in a manipulative sense. In other words, the payment information message is received the same way regardless of the data description.
Although Lee teaches a payment device establishing UWB communication with a user device to perform a payment transaction, Lee does not specifically disclose:
transmitting, using the UWB communication, an initiation message for initiation UWB ranging, the initiation message including a UWB message ID, store information, [and contention window information], wherein the UWB message ID indicates an identification of the initiation message, the store information includes a name of a store where the payment device is used…;
receiving, from a first user device using the UWB communication, a first response message in the contention window.
However Lerch, in analogous art of UWB transactions, teaches:
transmitting, using the UWB communication, an initiation message for initiation UWB ranging, the initiation message including a UWB message ID, store information, [and contention window information], wherein the UWB message ID indicates an identification of the initiation message, the store information includes a name of a store where the payment device is used… (e.g. In some embodiments, UWB radio 210 may broadcast a POLL message 230 at a time t.sub.1. In some embodiments, POLL message 230 may include header information and payload information. The header information may include a packet identifier, an identifier associated with UWB radio 210, and configuration information related to a specific UWB PHY layer option used by UWB radio 210 (e.g., a direct sequence UWB). The payload information may include information such as, for example, a timestamp of the time of transmission. In some embodiments, POLL message 230 elicits a response from another UWB-equipped device (e.g., electronic device 201) so that UWB radio 210 may calculate a distance measurement) (Section [0029] and [0030]);
Note: the limitation “wherein the UWB message ID indicates an identification of the initiation message, the store information includes a name of a store where the payment device is used” does not distinguish over the prior art as written because it is describing the data within the initiation message. The description of the data is not positively recited as a step/function of the claims and does not affect the steps/functions of the claims in a manipulative sense.
receiving, from a first user device using the UWB communication, a first response message in the contention window (e.g. electronic device 201 may transmit a RESPONSE message 232 to UWB radio 210. In some embodiments, RESPONSE message 232 includes header information and payload information. The header information may include a packet identifier, an identifier associated with UWB radio 210, and an identifier associated with electronic device 201. The payload information may include several parameters such as, for example, a timestamp of the time t.sub.2 for the receipt of POLL message 230 and a timestamp of the time t.sub.3 for the transmission of RESPONSE message 232) (Section [0030] and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UWB transaction process of Lee to include the use of initiation messages and response messages to determine a user location and type of payment, as taught by Lerch, in order to achieve the predictable result of enhancing user experience and ease of payment (See Lerch paragraph [0027]).
Although Lee/Lerch teaches transmitting an imitation message for initiating UWB ranging, Lee/Lerch does not specifically disclose:
contention window information…, wherein… the contention window information includes a time duration of a contention window.
However Kwak, in analogous art of wireless communication, teaches:
contention window information…, wherein… the contention window information includes a time duration of a contention window (e.g. If such a method is used, the CW indicator field may include the value of a contention window size. A synchronization signal may not include a CW indicator field. If a contention window field is present, the CW indicator field is placed behind the preamble field. Furthermore, the CW indicator field may be placed behind or ahead of the backoff indicator field) (Section [0072] and [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the initiation message of Lee/Lerch to include presence information of a contention window, as taught by Kwak, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing resource efficiency while reducing communication errors (See Kwak Paragraph 8 and 9).
Although Lee/Lerch/Kwak teaches establishing UWB communication for payment information, Lee/Lerch/Kwak does not specifically disclose:
wherein a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) configuration for the UWB communication is configured to a static STS, and a value of the static STS is generated based on a vendor identifier and a static STS configuration configured by a UWB command interface (UCI) for a specific payment application.
However Schober, in analogous art of UWB communication, teaches:
wherein a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) configuration for the UWB communication is configured to a static STS, and a value of the static STS is generated based on a vendor identifier and a static STS configuration configured by a UWB command interface (UCI) for a specific payment application (e.g. how the key is used depends on the implementation. For example, the generation of the STS may be based on a seed value, or the STS key may be combined with a counter. In addition to the STS keys, the second communication channel may be used to transmit information such as the exact position of the different anchors) (Section [0031] and [0040]).
Note: the limitation “wherein a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) configuration for the UWB communication is configured to a static STS, and a value of the static STS is generated based on a vendor identifier and a static STS configuration configured by a UWB command interface (UCI) for a specific payment application“ does not distinguish over the prior art because it is non-functional descriptive material that describes an STS configuration and generation. The limitation is not positively recited as a step/function of the claims and the STS is not used to further limit the claim limitations. In other words, the description of the STS configuration and generation does not affect the steps/functions of the claim in a manipulative sense.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the initiation message of Lee/Lerch/Kwak to include an STS for the UWB communication, as taught by Schober, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing the security of the UWB communication by preventing distance manipulation and preventing relay attacks.
Per claim 2, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Lee further teaches:
determining position information about at least one user device based on the response message (e.g. The terminal 215 (via the anchor 220 which is configured to transmit pulses and upon receiving an indication of another UWB chip within its vicinity will perform ranging operations) will be aware of the UWB-enabled devices 205 in its vicinity, including the device 210 for consumer 240. Based on the UWB protocol, the terminal 215 is able to determine the specific vicinity of the payment devices 205, including the UWB payment device 210 (e.g., using the spatial awareness)) (Section [0027]);
generating a user list for the at least one user device based on the position information (e.g. The terminal 215 (via the anchor 220 which is configured to transmit pulses and upon receiving an indication of another UWB chip within its vicinity will perform ranging operations) will be aware of the UWB-enabled devices 205 in its vicinity, including the device 210 for consumer 240. Based on the UWB protocol, the terminal 215 is able to determine the specific vicinity of the payment devices 205, including the UWB payment device 210 (e.g., using the spatial awareness)) (Section [0027]);
selecting the first user device having a payment intent based on the user list (e.g. In addition, based on the UWB-enabled device 210 approach angle and distance, the terminal (via the anchor 220) is able to determine the intention of the consumer 240 to potentially perform a payment transaction using a UWB secure communication channel 222. In this way, even when there are multiple UWB-enabled devices 205 in the vicinity, it is possible for the terminal 215 to accept payment from a specific UWB-enabled device 210) (Section [0027]).
Per claim 3, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Lerch further teaches:
wherein the initiation message includes information related to the contention window for the UWB ranging in a contention-based ranging mode (e.g. UWB radio 210 may broadcast a POLL message 230 at a time t.sub.1. In some embodiments, POLL message 230 may include header information and payload information. The header information may include a packet identifier, an identifier associated with UWB radio 210, and configuration information related to a specific UWB PHY layer option used by UWB radio 210 (e.g., a direct sequence UWB)) (Section [0029]).
The motivation to combine Lerch with Lee/Kwak/Schober is disclosed above with reference to claims 1 and 14.
Note: the limitation “wherein the initiation message includes information related to the contention window for the UWB ranging in a contention-based ranging mode” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the data within the initiation message and the intended use of that data which does not affect the steps of the claim in a manipulative sense.
Per claim 6, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Lerch further teaches:
wherein the response message includes information for identifying a user device transmitting the response message (e.g. In some embodiments, RESPONSE message 232 includes header information and payload information. The header information may include a packet identifier, an identifier associated with UWB radio 210, and an identifier associated with electronic device 201) (Section [0030]).
The motivation to combine Lerch with Lee/Kwak/Schober is disclosed above with reference to claims 1 and 14.
Note: the limitation “wherein the response message includes information for identifying a user device transmitting the response message” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the data within the response message which does not affect the steps of the claim in a manipulative sense.
Per claim 7, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the transaction information message includes transaction information for the payment or link information for obtaining the transaction information and includes information about at least one of a transaction amount, a merchant name, a merchant ID, an order number, a payment protocol, a shipping address, an address for a payment sheet, an allowed card brand, or recurring (e.g. The transaction related information at least includes the amount and merchant information (e.g., merchant name and/or merchant identifier such as a merchant code)) (Section [0028]).
Note: the limitation “wherein the transaction information message includes transaction information for the payment or link information for obtaining the transaction information and includes information about at least one of a transaction amount, a merchant name, a merchant ID, an order number, a payment protocol, a shipping address, an address for a payment sheet, an allowed card brand, or recurring” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the data within the transaction information message which does not affect the steps of the claim in a manipulative sense.
Per claim 9, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Lee further teaches:
wherein the transaction information message includes payment information and link information for obtaining the payment information (e.g. Here, the terminal 215 can communicate transaction information to the UWB-enabled device 210 by sharing (242) transaction related information via the UWB anchor 220. The transaction related information at least includes the amount and merchant information (e.g., merchant name and/or merchant identifier such as a merchant code). In the illustrated implementation, the transaction related information includes, a terminal identifier, EMV data preference, amount, and merchant information) (Section [0028] and [0029]).
Note: the limitation “wherein the transaction information message includes payment information and link information for obtaining the payment information” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the data within the transaction information message which does not affect the steps of the claim in a manipulative sense.
wherein the payment information includes information about at least one of a card number, an expiration data, an authentication service (auth service), a purchased total currency, an amount, billing information (info), or a token (e.g. A method 300 carried out by an application on a UWB-enabled device 310 can include receiving (312) a payment amount, for example, an amount 313 of “$25” to send to another party) (Section [0031] and [0035]).
Note: the limitation “wherein the payment information includes information about at least one of a card number, an expiration data, an authentication service (auth service), a purchased total currency, an amount, billing information (info), or a token” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the payment information data which does not affect the steps of the claim in a manipulative sense.
Per claim 11, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Schober further teaches:
wherein a ranging frame configuration for the UWB communication corresponds to an STS packet (SP) 1 configuration (e.g. If a scrambled timestamp sequence has not been received within its designated time slot, the corresponding UWB frame may for example be rejected. It is noted that the scrambled timestamp sequence will typically be included in or appended to a UWB frame. In this sense, the scrambled timestamp sequence is said to be associated with the UWB frame. Furthermore, it is noted that an ultra-wideband frame may be defined as a single ultra-wideband package that can have different configurations, for example as defined in the IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks (IEEE 802.15.4-2015 or IEEE 802.15.4z)) (Section [0031]);
wherein a ranging mode (scheduled mode) of the UWB ranging corresponds to a contention-based ranging mode (e.g. Most of the currently used indoor localization systems are either based on a bidirectional Two-Way Ranging (TWR) exchange or broadcasts if a synchronized anchor system is used. Using a bidirectional message exchange may provide a higher security regarding replay or relay attacks. When secure bidirectional ranging is applied, both sides append a so-called scrambled timestamp sequence (STS) in their UWB frames for authenticating the frame. The STS changes every time on both sides when a message is transmitted. More specifically, a UWB communication node (e.g. a user's mobile device) and a UWB communication anchor (e.g., forming part of a localization system with a fixed infrastructure), know what the STS of a current message frame should be) (Section [0028]).
Note: the limitations “wherein a ranging frame configuration for the UWB communication corresponds to an STS packet (SP) 1 configuration” and “wherein a ranging mode (scheduled mode) of the UWB ranging corresponds to a contention-based ranging mode” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the ranging mode and configuration of the UWB which does not affect the positively recited steps/functions of the claims in a manipulative sense. In other words, the positively recited steps/functions of the claims are performed the same way regardless of the description of the ranging mode and configuration.
The motivation to combine Schober with Lee/Lerch/Kwak is disclosed above with reference to claims 1 and 14.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of US 20180077605 A1 (“Maheshwari”).
Per claim 4, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. Kwak further discloses:
wherein the information related to the contention window includes [[flag information]] indicating whether contention window size information indicating duration of the contention window is present (e.g. the synchronization signal in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present invention includes a preamble field, a backoff indicator field, and a contention window (CW) indicator field. The CW indicator field is an optional field) (Section [0072]), (The CW indicator field includes the contention window value of a terminal that has sent a synchronization signal) (Section [0075]).
The motivation to combine Kwak with Lee/Lerch/Schober is disclosed above with reference to claims 1 and 14.
Although Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches that the contention window size information may or may not be present within the initiation message, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober do not specifically disclose:
flag information indicating whether [contention window size information indicating duration of the contention window] is present.
However Maheshwari, in analogous art of wireless communication, teaches:
flag information indicating whether [contention window size information indicating duration of the contention window] is present (e.g. For example, if the header is byte aligned then the LEN field may be 15 bits and the first bit may be a flag F indicating whether the NUM field is present) (Section [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the initiation message of Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober to include a flag indicating whether a certain data field is present, as taught by Maheshwari, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing communication efficiency between computing devices.
Note: the limitation “wherein the information related to the contention window includes flag information indicating whether contention window size information indicating duration of the contention window is present” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the data within the initiation message which does not affect the steps of the claim in a manipulative sense.
Per claim 5, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober/Maheshwari teach all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Kwak further teaches:
[wherein when the flag information is set to a first value] the contention window size information is not present in the initiation message, and [when the flag information is set to a second value], the contention window size information is present in the initiation message (e.g. the synchronization signal in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present invention includes a preamble field, a backoff indicator field, and a contention window (CW) indicator field. The CW indicator field is an optional field) (Section [0072]), (The CW indicator field includes the contention window value of a terminal that has sent a synchronization signal) (Section [0075]).
The motivation to combine Kwak with Lee/Lerch is disclosed above with reference to claims 1 and 14.
Maheshwari further teaches:
wherein when the flag information is set to a first value [the contention window size information] is not present in the initiation message, and when the flag information is set to a second value, the [contention window size information] is present in the initiation message (e.g. For example, if the header is byte aligned then the LEN field may be 15 bits and the first bit may be a flag F indicating whether the NUM field is present) (Section [0080]).
The motivation to combine Maheshwari with Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober is disclosed above with reference to claim 4.
Note: the limitation “wherein when the flag information is set to a first value the contention window size information is not present in the initiation message, and when the flag information is set to a second value, the contention window size information is present in the initiation message” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the data within the initiation message which does not affect the steps of the claim in a manipulative sense.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober, as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, in further view of US 10581611 B1 (“Osborn”).
Per claim 8, Although Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches sending transaction information to a user device, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober do not specifically teach:
wherein the transaction information message includes a first random number for encrypting the transaction information message and first signing information generated based on the transaction information and the first random number.
However Osborn, in analogous art of wireless payments, teaches:
wherein the transaction information message includes a first random number for encrypting the transaction information message and first signing information generated based on the transaction information and the first random number (e.g. At this point, a counter value maintained by the contactless card 105 may be updated or incremented, which may be followed by “Read NDEF file.” At this point, the message may be generated which may include a header and a shared secret. Session keys may then be generated. The MAC cryptogram may be created from the message, which may include the header and the shared secret. The MAC cryptogram may then be concatenated with one or more blocks of random data, and the MAC cryptogram and a random number (RND) may be encrypted with the session key. Thereafter, the cryptogram and the header may be concatenated, and encoded as ASCII hex and returned in NDEF message format (responsive to the “Read NDEF file” message)) (Column 5, Ln 36-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify transaction information message of Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober to include a random number to be used for encryption, as taught by Osborn, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing security for the wireless payment transactions (See Osborn Column 1, Ln 43-49).
Note: the limitation “wherein the transaction information message includes a first random number for encrypting the transaction information message and first signing information generated based on the transaction information and the first random number” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the data within the transaction information message which does not affect the steps of the claim in a manipulative sense.
Per claim 10, Although Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches receiving a payment information message from a user device, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober do not specifically teach:
wherein the payment information message further includes a second random number for encrypting the payment information message and second signing information generated based on the payment information, a first random number, and the second random number.
However Osborn, in analogous art of wireless payments, teaches:
wherein the payment information message further includes a second random number for encrypting the payment information message and second signing information generated based on the payment information, a first random number, and the second random number (e.g. At this point, a counter value maintained by the contactless card 105 may be updated or incremented, which may be followed by “Read NDEF file.” At this point, the message may be generated which may include a header and a shared secret. Session keys may then be generated. The MAC cryptogram may be created from the message, which may include the header and the shared secret. The MAC cryptogram may then be concatenated with one or more blocks of random data, and the MAC cryptogram and a random number (RND) may be encrypted with the session key. Thereafter, the cryptogram and the header may be concatenated, and encoded as ASCII hex and returned in NDEF message format (responsive to the “Read NDEF file” message)) (Column 5, Ln 36-67 and Column 14, Ln 47-63 and Column 23, Ln 6-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify transaction information message of Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober to include random numbers to be used for encryption, as taught by Osborn, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing security for the wireless payment transactions (See Osborn Column 1, Ln 43-49).
Note: the limitation “wherein the payment information message further includes a second random number for encrypting the payment information message and second signing information generated based on the payment information, a first random number, and the second random number” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the data within the payment information message which does not affect the steps of the claim in a manipulative sense.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of CN 107147999 A (“Meng”).
Per claim 16, Lerch further discloses:
wherein the UWB communication comprises an encrypted [[unicast]] signal (e.g. In some embodiments, the POLL, RESPONSE, and FINAL messages may be encrypted based at least in part on an encryption key stored in a secure subsystem of the electronic device and known to the UWB radio) (Section [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UWB communication of Lee/Kwak/Schober to include encrypted communication as taught by Lerch, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing the security of the UWB transaction system.
Although Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches establishing UWB communication between a payment device and user device, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober do not specifically teach:
wherein the UWB communication comprises an encrypted unicast signal.
However Meng, in analogous art of UWB communication, teaches:
wherein the UWB communication comprises an encrypted unicast signal (e.g. The invention claims a positioning method of long-distance wireless transmission, the LTE and UWB, RFID module (wideband and ultra-wideband) for fusion, the LTE product has its own ultra-long-distance data transmission with precise positioning function, solving the technical problem of super-far-distance product cannot precisely locating. has less investment cost, convenient module and short development cycle. and it has high speed, embedded universal interface of stable support simply data transport protocol UDP, supports UDP multicasting and unicasting) (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UWB communication of Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober to include encrypted unicast signals, as taught by Meng, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing security for the communication.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in further view of US 20040203931 A1 (“Karaoguz”) and US 20160071071 A1 (“Lazay”).
Per claims 17 and 18, Kwak further discloses:
wherein the initiation message includes length information of the contention window when presence information of the contention window indicates a presence (e.g. the CW indicator field may include the value of a contention window size) (Section [0072], [0075], and [0136]).
wherein the second response message is received in the contention window from the first user device (e.g. The synchronization method may include receiving first synchronization signals from the first terminal and second terminals different from the first terminal, calculating an average inter-arrival time between the first synchronization signals, calculating an average contention window of the second terminals using the first synchronization signals, setting a first contention window which is a contention window of the first terminal using the average inter-arrival time and the average contention window, and determining whether or not to send a synchronization signal in response to the first contention window) (Section [0024]).
The motivation to combine Kwak with Lee/Lerch/Schober is disclosed above with reference to claims 1 and 14.
Although Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober teaches establishing UWB communication between a payment device and user device, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober do not specifically teach:
receiving a second response message from a second user device;
determining position information of the first user device and the second user device based on the initiation message, the first response message from the first user device and the second response message from the second message;
generating a user list based on the position information.
However Karaoguz, in analogous art of UWB communication, teaches:
receiving a second response message from a second user device (e.g. FIG. 3 further shows the step of receiving reflected UWB signals at step 320. After the transmission of UWB signals, either uni-directionally or omni-directionally, the transmitted UWB signals can come into contact with one or more devices within the distance range, and thereafter the signals can reflect back to the UWB device locator where the reflected signals can be received by the receiver within the wireless device) (Section [0021]-[0029] and Fig. 3).
determining position information of the first user device and the second user device based on the initiation message, the first response message from the first user device and the second response message from the second message (e.g. Based on this information and other factors, such as propagation delay, the direction and angle of the signal transmission, the speed at which the signal travels compared to the speed at which light travels, etc., the UWB device locator can process the information in a range processor to determine the distance range of one or more available device(s) at step 330. Once the distance range of other wireless devices are determined, the UWB device locator can display such information on a display to the user) (Section [0021]-[0029] and Fig. 3);
generating a user list based on the position information (e.g. Once the distance range of other wireless devices are determined, the UWB device locator can display such information on a display to the user) (Section [0029] and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UWB communication of Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober to include the determination of positioning information based on the responses, as taught by Karaoguz, in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing security by making sure that only a device that is close by can perform the transaction.
Although Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober/Karaoguz teaches using UWB communication to generate a list of devices based on position information, Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober/Karaoguz do not specifically teach:
selecting the first user device having a payment intent based on the user list.
However Lazay, in analogous art of location based wireless transactions, teaches:
selecting the first user device having a payment intent based on the user list (e.g. After displaying the facial images to the user in block 510, in block 512 the client payment facility receives an input from the user selecting one of the facial images, which indicates that the user would like to initiate a payment transaction with the user corresponding to the selected facial image) (Section [0098]-[0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UWB location list of Lee/Lerch/Kwak/Schober/Karaoguz to include a selection of the user that intends to perform a transaction, as taught by Lazay, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to easily select a nearby user to perform a transaction without having to manually search.
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 the Examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY SAX whose telephone number is 571-272-2935. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575.
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.
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.
/TPS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698