DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication received on 08/15/2025.
Status of the Claims
This is a FINAL Office Action rejection prepared in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on
08/15/2025.
Claims 21, 25, 28, 32, 35 and 39 are amended.
Claims 1-20, 23, 30 and 37 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22, 24-29, 31-36 and 38-40 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 40, the recited “the one or more intervening actions…” should be amended to “the one or more actions…” as there is no antecedents basis for “the one or more intervening actions…” in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Nonfunctional language:
Regarding claim 21, 28 and 35, the claimed limitation “the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and a notification to not communicate back to the user device” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it does not affect the positively recited steps as the description of the data does not affect the positively recited step(s) in the method claim(s).
Regarding claim 40, the claimed limitation “the alternative interface comprises one or more of a false indication that a transaction has been processed or a false indication of a minimized account balance” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it does not affect the positively recited steps.
Conditional language:
Regarding claims 21, 28 and 35, the claimed limitation “responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Intended use/result Language:
Regarding claims 21 and 28, the claimed limitation “...presents an…” in “the emergency mode display presents an alternative interface that…” consists of language disclosing an intended result, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
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 21-22, 24-29, 31-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 21-22 and 24-27 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Claims 28-29 and 31-36 are directed to a second method (i.e., process). Claims 38-40 are directed to a third method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 21, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for initiating an emergency mode at an electronic wallet application, the method comprising:
receiving an input at a silent alarm engine of the electronic wallet application running on a user device, the input comprising credentials provided by a user of the user device;
verifying an identity of the user by comparing the credentials to normal credentials and emergency credentials;
determining, based on the comparing, whether the credentials correspond to a normal mode or an emergency mode;
responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display, wherein
the emergency mode display presents an alternative interface that displays an incorrect account balance associated with the user and
providing instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency service provider, the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and a notification to not communicate back to the user device.
Claim 21, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for initializing an emergency mode. The claim achieves this by receiving an input comprising user credentials, determining if the user provided emergency credentials by comparing the received credentials to normal and emergency credentials, if emergency credentials are received provide instructions to execute an emergency mode and alert authorities. Claim 28 and 35 are significantly similar to claim 21. As such claim 28 and 35 also recite an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).).
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of an electronic wallet application, a silent alarm engine, a sensor, a user device and an alternative interface merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 22, 24-27, 29, 31-34, 36 and 38-40 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 22, 24-27, 29, 31-34, 36 and 38-40 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 22, 29 and 36 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the silent alarm engine provides instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency services provider.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a silent alarm engine and a user device fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 24, 31 and 38 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
communicating the alert to a provider associated with a transaction initiated at the electronic wallet application while in emergency mode.
The claim further an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 25 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
initiating one or more actions that alter a functionality of the electronic wallet application.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 26 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the alternative interface falsely indicates that a transaction has been processed.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an alternative interface fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 27 and 34 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
reporting a destination address to a provider associated with the transaction and an emergency services provider.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 32 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
initiating one or more actions that modify the user interface of the electronic wallet application.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 33 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the alternative interface minimizes a balance associated with the user of the electronic wallet application.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 39 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
initiating one or more actions that suppress a standard transaction behavior at the electronic wallet application.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 40 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the alternative interface comprises one or more of a false indication that a transaction has been processed or a false indication of a minimized account balance.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an alternative interface fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
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.
Claims 21-22, 25-26, 28-29, 32-33, 35-36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 5,615,277) in view of Nakano (US 5,987,438).
Regarding claim 21, Hoffman discloses:
receiving an input at a silent alarm engine of the [(Hoffman abstract, The security system and method are principally based on a correlative comparison of a unique biometric sample, such as a finger print or voice recording, gathered directly from the person of an unknown user with an authenticated unique biometric sample of the same type obtained from each authorized user. Hoffman Col 5 lines 57-60, In operation, the user enters biometric data directly from his person, such as by pressing a finger or thumb print onto a sensor pad. This input data is then transmitted to another part of the system that is operatively isolated from the user. Here the input biometric data collected from the user is compared to authenticated biometric data collected from each individual authorized to obtain access to the secured computer system. Hoffman Col 6 lines 26-31, Upon receipt of the input biometric data from the user, the secured computer network would forward said data to the security system of the invention, where a verification of the user's identity would be determined from comparison with authenticated biometric data from authorized users of the secured computer system. Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state a silent alarm, Hoffman discloses on Col 4 lines 41-45 that “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken” and on Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”, thereby implying that the alarm operates silently. )
verifying an identity of the user by comparing the credentials to normal credentials and emergency credentials; (Hoffman Col 5 lines 51-54, comparison means for comparing the input biometric data with authenticated biometric data of authorized users and verifying user identity based upon the comparison; Col 6 lines 59-63)
determining, based on the comparing, whether the credentials correspond to a normal mode or an emergency mode; (Hoffman Col 6 lines 59-63, In such an embodiment, an authorized user would have a number of codes, one of which would be recognized by the security system as the standard access code, and the remainder of which would be recognized as emergency codes. The comparison means of the security system of the invention would be configured to accept and recognize more than one code per authorized user, and to activate the emergency alert means whenever the code entered by the user matched an emergency code.)
responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display, wherein (Hoffman Col 15 lines 59-67 & Col 16 lines 1-10, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situation by automatically imposing limitations of the types and amounts of transaction that can be carried out when access has been coerced. Such means would be triggered automatically by activation of the emergency notification means and transmit an access limitation request to the computer system or systems to be accessed. This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access.)
the emergency mode display presents an alternative interface that displays an incorrect account balance associated with the user; and (Hoffman Col 7 lines 30-33, In such a case, the secured computer system would also generate temporary dummy accounts to reflect only enough money or credit to transact a particular transaction. Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account. Hoffman Col 16, lines 10-12, For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions.)
providing instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency service provider the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and (Hoffman Col 15 lines 30-42, Preliminary, it should be noted that it is essential that such emergency notification means be invisible, or at least extremely inconspicuous to, the coercing party. Such features would have little value if discoverable, and potentially could result in physical harm to the authorized user. According to one aspect of the invention, the security system is provided with an emergency notification means that alerts the nearest located police or other designated law enforcement agency that a computer system, such as a credit card account, is being access involuntarily. The means further provides the locality of the access attempt and the name of the authorized user.)
a notification to not communicate back to the user device. (Hoffman Col 4 lines 41-45, “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken”. Hoffman Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”.
Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state “a notification to not communicate back to the user device”, it emphasizes the importance of secret operations to avoid alerting the enemy which provides a clear motivation to one skilled in the art to configure the alert to include an instruction to not communicate back with the user.
Hoffman does not disclose, however Nakano teaches:
an electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Hoffman’s teaching with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that enables an authorized user to silently alert authorities in the event of coercion or emergency.
Regarding claim 22, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 21. Hoffman further discloses:
the silent alarm engine provides instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency services provider. (Hoffman Col 5 lines 7-11, Yet another object of the invention is to provide a computer access security system that enables a user to notify authorities that a particular access request is being coerced by a third party without giving notice to the third party of the notification. Hoffman Col 6 lines 52-55, According to a further embodiment of the invention, a means is provided for alerting predesignated authorities during an access attempt that the user has been coerced to request access by a third party.)
Regarding claim 25 Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 21. Hoffman further discloses:
initiating one or more actions that alter a functionality (Hoffman Col 5 lines 31-42, Further, these objects are met by providing a security system and method in which certain programs and data within the computer access verification system are isolated from and inaccessible to the user, at least until the access requested has been granted. According to the invention, actual verification of user identity is isolated from possible tampering by the user requesting access. More importantly, all stored authenticated biometric data used in the verification process is also isolated from access by the user until the user's identity has been verified, thereby preventing the counterfeiting and reuse of the authenticated data to gain fraudulent access. Hoffman col 15 lines 59-67 & col 16 lines 1-21, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situation by automatically imposing limitations of the types and amounts of transaction that can be carried out when access has been coerced. Such means would be triggered automatically by activation of the emergency notification means and transmit an access limitation request to the computer system or systems to be accessed. This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access. For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions. Alternatively, the computer system may provide a false, but otherwise standard error message or display screen to indicate that a particular type of transaction or account is temporarily unavailable due to mechanical error or the like. It will be appreciated that means for achieving the impositions of such limitations are know and are in use currently by, for example, financial institutions when a customer reports a lost credit or ATM card.)
Nakano further teaches:
of the electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Hoffman and Nakano with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that has additional security and control features for fraud prevention and regulatory compliance.
Regarding claim 26 Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 21. Hoffman further discloses:
the alternative interface falsely indicates that a transaction has been processed. (Hoffman Col 7 lines 33-37, Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account.)
Regarding claim 28 Hoffman discloses:
receiving an input at a silent alarm engine of the [(Hoffman abstract, The security system and method are principally based on a correlative comparison of a unique biometric sample, such as a finger print or voice recording, gathered directly from the person of an unknown user with an authenticated unique biometric sample of the same type obtained from each authorized user. Hoffman Col 5 lines 57-60, In operation, the user enters biometric data directly from his person, such as by pressing a finger or thumb print onto a sensor pad. This input data is then transmitted to another part of the system that is operatively isolated from the user. Here the input biometric data collected from the user is compared to authenticated biometric data collected from each individual authorized to obtain access to the secured computer system. Hoffman Col 6 lines 26-31, Upon receipt of the input biometric data from the user, the secured computer network would forward said data to the security system of the invention, where a verification of the user's identity would be determined from comparison with authenticated biometric data from authorized users of the secured computer system. Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state a silent alarm, Hoffman discloses on Col 4 lines 41-45 that “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken” and on Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”, thereby implying that the alarm operates silently. )
verifying an identity of the user by comparing the credentials to normal credentials and emergency credentials; (Hoffman Col 5 lines 51-54, comparison means for comparing the input biometric data with authenticated biometric data of authorized users and verifying user identity based upon the comparison)
determining, based on the comparing, whether the credentials correspond to a normal mode or an emergency mode; (Hoffman Col 6 lines 59-63, In such an embodiment, an authorized user would have a number of codes, one of which would be recognized by the security system as the standard access code, and the remainder of which would be recognized as emergency codes. The comparison means of the security system of the invention would be configured to accept and recognize more than one code per authorized user, and to activate the emergency alert means whenever the code entered by the user matched an emergency code.)
responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display, wherein (Hoffman Col 15 lines 59-67 & Col 16 lines 1-10, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situation by automatically imposing limitations of the types and amounts of transaction that can be carried out when access has been coerced. Such means would be triggered automatically by activation of the emergency notification means and transmit an access limitation request to the computer system or systems to be accessed. This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access.)
the emergency mode display presents an alternative interface that falsely indicates that a transaction has been processed; and ((Hoffman Col 7 lines 33-37, Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account.)
providing instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency service provider the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and (Hoffman Col 15 lines 30-42, Preliminary, it should be noted that it is essential that such emergency notification means be invisible, or at least extremely inconspicuous to, the coercing party. Such features would have little value if discoverable, and potentially could result in physical harm to the authorized user. According to one aspect of the invention, the security system is provided with an emergency notification means that alerts the nearest located police or other designated law enforcement agency that a computer system, such as a credit card account, is being access involuntarily. The means further provides the locality of the access attempt and the name of the authorized user.)
a notification to not communicate back to the user device. (Hoffman Col 4 lines 41-45, “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken”. Hoffman Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”.
Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state “a notification to not communicate back to the user device”, it emphasizes the importance of secret operations to avoid alerting the enemy which provides a clear motivation to one skilled in the art to configure the alert to include an instruction to not communicate back with the user.
Hoffman does not disclose, however Nakano teaches:
an electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Hoffman’s teaching with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that enables an authorized user to silently alert authorities in the event of coercion or emergency.
Regarding claim 29, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 28. Hoffman further discloses:
the silent alarm engine provides instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency services provider. (Hoffman Col 5 lines 7-11, Yet another object of the invention is to provide a computer access security system that enables a user to notify authorities that a particular access request is being coerced by a third party without giving notice to the third party of the notification. Hoffman Col 6 lines 52-55, According to a further embodiment of the invention, a means is provided for alerting predesignated authorities during an access attempt that the user has been coerced to request access by a third party.)
Regarding claim 32, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 28. Hoffman further discloses:
initiating one or more actions that modify the user interface (Hoffman Col 16 lines 5-17, This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access. For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions. Alternatively, the computer system may provide a false, but otherwise standard error message or display screen to indicate that a particular type of transaction or account is temporarily unavailable due to mechanical error or the like.)
Nakano further teaches:
of the electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Hoffman and Nakano with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that has additional security and control features for fraud prevention and regulatory compliance.
Regarding claim 33, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 28. Hoffman further discloses:
the alternative interface minimizes a balance associated with the user of the electronic wallet application. (Hoffman Col 7 lines 30-33, In such a case, the secured computer system would also generate temporary dummy accounts to reflect only enough money or credit to transact a particular transaction. Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account. Hoffman Col 16, lines 10-12, For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions.)
Regarding claim 35 Hoffman discloses:
receiving an input at a silent alarm engine of the [(Hoffman abstract, The security system and method are principally based on a correlative comparison of a unique biometric sample, such as a finger print or voice recording, gathered directly from the person of an unknown user with an authenticated unique biometric sample of the same type obtained from each authorized user. Hoffman Col 5 lines 57-60, In operation, the user enters biometric data directly from his person, such as by pressing a finger or thumb print onto a sensor pad. This input data is then transmitted to another part of the system that is operatively isolated from the user. Here the input biometric data collected from the user is compared to authenticated biometric data collected from each individual authorized to obtain access to the secured computer system. Hoffman Col 6 lines 26-31, Upon receipt of the input biometric data from the user, the secured computer network would forward said data to the security system of the invention, where a verification of the user's identity would be determined from comparison with authenticated biometric data from authorized users of the secured computer system. Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state a silent alarm, Hoffman discloses on Col 4 lines 41-45 that “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken” and on Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”, thereby implying that the alarm operates silently. )
verifying an identity of the user by comparing the credentials to normal credentials and emergency credentials; (Hoffman Col 5 lines 51-54, comparison means for comparing the input biometric data with authenticated biometric data of authorized users and verifying user identity based upon the comparison)
determining, based on the comparing, whether the credentials correspond to a normal mode or an emergency mode; (Hoffman Col 6 lines 59-63, In such an embodiment, an authorized user would have a number of codes, one of which would be recognized by the security system as the standard access code, and the remainder of which would be recognized as emergency codes. The comparison means of the security system of the invention would be configured to accept and recognize more than one code per authorized user, and to activate the emergency alert means whenever the code entered by the user matched an emergency code.)
responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display, wherein (Hoffman Col 15 lines 59-67 & Col 16 lines 1-10, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situation by automatically imposing limitations of the types and amounts of transaction that can be carried out when access has been coerced. Such means would be triggered automatically by activation of the emergency notification means and transmit an access limitation request to the computer system or systems to be accessed. This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access.)
the display in the electronic wallet application, while in the emergency mode, appears to continue in a normal operating mode so as not to alert a third party; and (Hoffman Col 7 lines 6-13, As discussed above, the invention includes an emergency alert means. The well-being of the user requesting access might be jeopardized if the coercing party discovered that the user was attempting to notify authorities. Thus, it is critical that the access procedure continue uninterruptedly and that access be granted to an authorized user so that the coercing party believes that everything is proceeding normally.)
providing instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency service provider the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and (Hoffman Col 15 lines 30-42, Preliminary, it should be noted that it is essential that such emergency notification means be invisible, or at least extremely inconspicuous to, the coercing party. Such features would have little value if discoverable, and potentially could result in physical harm to the authorized user. According to one aspect of the invention, the security system is provided with an emergency notification means that alerts the nearest located police or other designated law enforcement agency that a computer system, such as a credit card account, is being access involuntarily. The means further provides the locality of the access attempt and the name of the authorized user.)
a notification to not communicate back to the user device. (Hoffman Col 4 lines 41-45, “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken”. Hoffman Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”.
Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state “a notification to not communicate back to the user device”, it emphasizes the importance of secret operations to avoid alerting the enemy which provides a clear motivation to one skilled in the art to configure the alert to include an instruction to not communicate back with the user.
Nakano further teaches:
an electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Hoffman’s teaching with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that enables an authorized user to silently alert authorities in the event of coercion or emergency.
Regarding claim 36, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 35. Hoffman further discloses:
the silent alarm engine provides instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency services provider. (Hoffman Col 5 lines 7-11, Yet another object of the invention is to provide a computer access security system that enables a user to notify authorities that a particular access request is being coerced by a third party without giving notice to the third party of the notification. Hoffman Col 6 lines 52-55, According to a further embodiment of the invention, a means is provided for alerting predesignated authorities during an access attempt that the user has been coerced to request access by a third party.)
Regarding claim 39, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 35. Hoffman further discloses:
initiating one or more actions that suppress a standard transaction behavior (Hoffman Col 5 lines 31-42, Further, these objects are met by providing a security system and method in which certain programs and data within the computer access verification system are isolated from and inaccessible to the user, at least until the access requested has been granted. According to the invention, actual verification of user identity is isolated from possible tampering by the user requesting access. More importantly, all stored authenticated biometric data used in the verification process is also isolated from access by the user until the user's identity has been verified, thereby preventing the counterfeiting and reuse of the authenticated data to gain fraudulent access. Hoffman col 15 lines 59-67 & col 16 lines 1-21, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situa