Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 2-21 have been examined.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-5, 9-15, 19-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Killian (US 2009/0094126) in view of Hoyos (US 2010/0014720).
Referring to Claim 2, Killian teaches a system for facilitating a near field communication (NFC) transaction, comprising: a processor configured to:
facilitate an NFC transaction involving a point of sale terminal and a mobile device comprising an NFC chip (see Killian ¶¶0040,32), wherein completion of the NFC transaction is based at least in part on a fraud detection analysis performed by the mobile device (see Killian ¶¶0086,007), and wherein the performing of the fraud detection analysis by the mobile device comprises:
capturing using a camera of the mobile device biometric information corresponding to a user (see Killian ¶0086);
approving the NFC transaction based at least in part on a condition, in place of a password requirement (see Killian Fig. 9 item 910 and ¶¶0097,104);
a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions (see Killian ¶0040).
Killian teaches a biometric information but not that the biometric information is plurality of pieces, based in part on the plurality of pieces making a determination of whether the user is alive, and finally the approving based on the determination of whether the user is alive. However, Hoyos teaches a biometric information is plurality of pieces (see Hoyos ¶0018, a series of multiple photos taken of a person), based in part on the plurality of pieces making a determination of whether the user is alive (see Hoyos ¶¶0019-21, a probability of whether a person is alive), and finally the approving based on the determination of whether the user is alive (see Hoyos ¶¶0024,27, the person is authenticated and their transaction is authorized). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because determining whether a user is alive based on multiple biometric images can help prevent fraud and spoofing and fraud (see Hoyos ¶¶0011,24).
Referring to Claim 3, the combination teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of pieces biometric information comprises a first photograph and a second photograph (see Hoyos ¶¶0018-19).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the fraud detection analysis comprises photographic authorization (see Hoyos ¶¶0018-19).
Referring to Claim 5, the combination teaches the system of claim 2, wherein completion of the NFC transaction is facilitated based at least in part on user selection of an element presented in a user interface (see Hoyos ¶¶0097).
Referring to Claim 9, the combination teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the NFC transaction comprises a payment (see Killian Fig. 10).
Referring to Claim 10, the combination teaches the system of claim 2, wherein performing the fraud detection analysis comprises performing a location-based verification (see Killian ¶0085, address).
Referring to Claims 11-15, 19-21, these claims are similar to claims 1-5 and 9-10, and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Claims 6-8 16-18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Killian (US 2009/0094126) in view of Hoyos (US 2010/0014720) in further view of Stone (US 2010/00042535).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination teaches the system of claim 2. The combination does not teach wherein a payment type associated with the NFC transaction is visually represented in a user interface. However Stone teaches wherein a payment type associated with a transaction is visually represented on a user interface (see Stone Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination of Killian and Hoyos would continue to teach an NFC transaction except that now it would also teach a payment type associated with the NFC transaction visually represented in a user interface. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 7, the combination teaches the point-of-sale terminal of claim 6, wherein the payment type comprises a credit card (see Stone ¶0034).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination teaches the system of claim 6, wherein a user selection of the payment type is received via the user interface (see Stone ¶0034).
Referring to Claims 16-18, these claims are similar to claims 6-8 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Remarks
Additional prior art of record relevant to the application but not relied upon includes:
Reference U (see PTO-892) which teaches a liveness determination using face detection.
HAMESTER (DE 19809006 A1) teaches a cashless financial transaction system using biometrics
The applicant respectfully argues that the prior art does not teach the claimed limitations. Specifically, the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach using the biomentric information to identify liveliness in place of a password requirement. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Hoyos teaches taking a series of photos of a person in [0018] and determining a “probability of a live person” based on those images according to [0019]-[0020] and this is a “liveliness” determination according to [0024]. Finally, the prior art does not require a password in conjunction with the liveliness determination. For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688