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 .
This communication is a Final Office Action, in response to Applicant’s amendment filed September 12, 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
No new information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 9-11, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcome the rejection. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The function of causing the payment to be carried out does not include who carries out the “causing.” The claim does not recite that the first device carries out the transaction using the payment method. Simply stating that a transaction is caused to be carried out fails to clearly provide who, which entity, carries out this limitation. Furthermore, the limitation at issue could technically be rejected under 112(b) because the limitation currently is broader than the Specification. Meaning, because the claims fail to recite which entity carries out the claim limitations, any entity can be interpreted as carrying out the claim limitation at issues. However, the Specification as cited, indicates by the Applicant, and further including at least Figures 3 and 11, the Application Server 102 is the actual entity that actually carries out the causing limitation at issue. Claim 1 and all other independent claims fail to clearly convey which entities perform all of the claimed limitations. The claims seem to incorporate Figures 3 and 11 into the claims without clearly reciting which entity performs which limitations, resulting in the continued rejections under 112. Applicant must amend claim 1 to have a broad pre-amble that is not focused on a single entity, then recite which entity carries out each limitation. Per claims 11 and 16, the applicant again must recite a broader pre-amble, such as a system comprising: and then listing one by one the entities that comprise the entire system, i.e. first device, server application, second device, recite the structure of each, and then recite what each entity does. Failure to implement such amendments will result in continued rejections.
Per claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection is amended to include only the system and CRM claims, excluding the method claim. As in a method claim, additional entities can be brought in to further limit the claimed method scope. However, the same is not true for a system claim or a CRM claim. See rejection below and above explanation of the failure to convey which entities carry out which functions.
Applicant's arguments, pages 10-14, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity.
I. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, wherein the abstract idea is characterized under certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. The claims are analyzed under MPEP 2106 and further, the “MPEP now incorporates the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (October 2019 Update), and the Berkheimer Memo, all references to those materials should now be directed to the MPEP.”
Under MPEP §2106, the claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).
If the claims recite a judicial exception, under section (1), and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, section (2), then the claims are further analyzed to determine whether they:
(3) add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP §2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The claimed subject matter falls under one of the four statutory categories of invention; Step 1. The instant claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea of merely utilizing a payment method to settle a transaction based on manipulation of data without significantly more; Step 2A-Prong One. The Examiner disagrees that the claims are being over simplified. The claims are analyzed as a whole, with the exception of what is deemed as additional elements, which are later discussed under Step 2A-Prong Two. The abstract idea, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Under these abstract idea, the abstract idea captures, clearly, the following subgroupings: concepts performed in the human mind, including judgement, opinion, evaluation, and observation and carrying out these concepts using pen and paper and commercial interactions, including sales activities or behaviors. The claimed scope is driven on the basis of using a generated token to settle a transaction. The claims further recite rules and restrictions that accompany the use of the token for the transaction. Therefore, such concepts, including the instant claimed concepts and all of its claims as a whole, under BRI, capture nothing more than the above abstract idea and its related sub-groupings.
For emphasis, Examiner notes that each limitation of the claimed scope can be carried out by a human using their mind and pen and paper. a human can receive data on a sheet of paper (versus the claimed GUI, which is interpreted as an additional element), a human can associated an account with set restrictions (rules), the human can also generate data such as first security credential data based on the payment method and includes a first value (nothing more than generating a code on a paper). A human can send an invitation to another human and request a second security code. A human can receive the second security code from the other human using verbal or written communication. A human can compare the values and generate yet more data; here called a token. A token is nothing more than code or data or information that could comprise restrictions (rules) and other information; a token can be ABC123 written on a paper by a human. The token can be send to the second human via verbal or written communication. A human can receive from a third person (claimed as a POS), the third person being a merchant, the token information and transaction data, such as value of transaction ($10), date (12/30/2025), account ID (12345) associated with the merchant, a human can determine the set of restrictions (rules) associated with the token. The human can compare the rules to the transaction information. If the comparison is true, then the transaction can be carried out (i.e. payment of $10 using the token) can be completed. Above, the entirety of claim 1 is reconstructed from the perspective of the identified mental processed abstract idea grouping.
B. Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements that amount to a practical application.
II. The claims fail to include additional elements to amount to a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments. The claims fail to incorporate any additional elements that amount to a practical application. At best, the Applicant tries to focus on the claims as a whole instead of only the additional elements. Likewise, the Applicant’s focus on elements such as the token fail to capture a practical application or improvement to a technology or field. Instead, the claims recite the following additional elements at best: A first device, second device, one or more processors, one or more memory, instructions, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, generating, based on the match, a token for a transaction, the token associated with the set of restrictions and including token information, and receiving a set of user inputs via a first graphical user interface (GUI).
Applicant’s arguments of the token being encrypted and that the combination of elements results in an improvement in the technical field of IT, authentication and authorization, and / or access control is not persuasive. The claims fail to include any language to support the encryption of data to generate a token. Even if the claims did mention encryption, such an element would not be practical because encryption has long been utilized and can be carried out by a human mind using pen and paper. If said encryption is done based on some formula, then such a concept would fall under mental processes too. On the other hand, if the encryption is done in a way that results in an improvement to a device, functioning of a device, technical solution in a technology or field, then such manner of encryption could amount to a practical application. Applicant’s Specification fails to include any hint of such technical solutions rooted in computer technology when discussing encryption. Examiner again points to MPEP 2106.04(d)(III), which recites that the “specification… must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner… the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets for an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” The instant claims fail to recite at least any of the elements argued with respect to the Specification. No technical solution to a technical problem is clearly found in the Specification and supported by technical features that are also incorporated into the claims.
Again, the Examiner finds no additional elements in the claims that would amount to a practical application. The additional elements, as noted above, are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, storing data, generating data, sending data, analyzing data and outputting a result. The additional elements merely automate the abstract idea. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Emphasis added.
As a result, the claims are note patent eligible, under Step-2A, Prong II.
C. Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
III. The claims, under Step-2B fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Examiner notes that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception; Step-2B. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
D. Applicant argues that dependent claims 4, 7, and 9 include additional elements that amount to a practical application.
IV. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea; failing to include additional elements that amount to a practical application.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Per claims 4-7, the claims recite limitations which further describe the abstract idea, fail to include additional elements to amount to a practical application, and further fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. At best, the dependent claims argued simply link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; merely apply the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims fail to capture an improvement of a computer, technology or field; (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). As a result, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 4-7 are not patent eligible; they amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claims 1, 11, and 16, the claims recite “causing the payment method to be used for the transaction associated with the first user account and the POS device.” The verb “causing” is not followed by structure associated with a device that would be capable of performing the verb/function causing. As a result, it is not known, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, how the causing of the payment method to be used is carried out, by which device, etc. Amending the claim limitation at issue to instead recite: settling the transaction by the first device using the payment method associated with the first user account and the POS device would overcome the rejection. All dependent claims are rejected for mere dependence on the rejection claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10, 12-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claims 12-15, and 18-19, the claims recite limitations which are directed to what a POS device does and what a second device does. These limitations are outside of the claimed scope from which the claims at issue depend; claims 11 and 16. The independent claims are exclusively directed to a system carried out by a first device, and a CRM of a system that is of a first device as well. All the claim limitations of claims 11 and 16 are carried out by the first device and from the perspective of the first device. The POS system is not claimed as further comprising the claimed system and fails to include proper Beauregard language for the second device or a POS for example. As a result, the limitations directed to what a second device is doing are clearly outside the scope of the claims, rendering the claims indefinite.
Applicant may amend claims 11, and 16 to recite both the first device and second device as being past of the systems and include appropriate Beauregard language for the second device to carry out the functions as claimed by the second device (i.e., the second device further comprising a second device memory storing second device instructions, when executed by a second device processor causes the second device processor to perform operations comprising).
For purposes of examination, any limitation directed to any entity other than the first device will not carry any weight as it is indefinite for being outside the scope of the claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of utilizing a payment method to settle a transaction based on manipulation of data without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors and business relations. The abstract idea can further be characterized under mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind such as evaluation, judgement, and opinion and the use of pen and paper to carry out the abstract idea. Setting up rules, assigning an identifier to a first user, receiving a second identifier from another user, comparing the two identifiers to determine a match, generating a code and providing the code to the second user to use in conducting a transaction, analyzing restrictions / rules associated with the code, and based on a positive determination, authorization usage of the code in a transaction highlights the above identifier abstract idea groupings. The relationship between entities to settle a transaction further captures the sales activities/behaviors and business relations sub-categories. The claimed scope can be carried out using a human mind, using judgement, opinion, evaluation, and further by using a pen and paper as detailed above.
Claim 1 recites:
A method implemented by a system and comprising:
receiving a set of user inputs… associated with a first user account, the set of user inputs indicating a set of restrictions for using a payment method associated with the first user account, the set of restrictions including user information, a transaction value restriction, and an expiration date restriction;
associating the first user account with the set of restrictions;
generating a first security credential associated with using the payment method, wherein the first security credential includes a first value;
transmitting, based on the user information, an invitation…, the invitation requesting at least a second security credential to use the payment method;
receiving the second security credential…, wherein the second security credential includes the first value;
determining a match between the first value of the first security credential and the first value of the second security credential;
generating, based on the match, a token for a transaction, the token associated with the set of restrictions and including token information;
sending the token…;
receiving… the token information and transaction information including a transaction value, a transaction date, and an account identifier for an account associated with the POS device;
determining the set of restrictions associated with the token information;
comparing the set of restrictions with the transaction information to determine the transaction value complies with the transaction value restriction and the transaction date complies with the expiration date restriction; and
responsive to determining the transaction information complies with the transaction value restriction and the expiration date restriction, causing the payment method to be used for the transaction associated with the first user account and the POS device.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: a first device, second device, one or more processors, one or more memory, instructions, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, generating, based on the match, a token for a transaction, the token associated with the set of restrictions and including token information, and receiving a set of user inputs via a first graphical user interface (GUI). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, storing data, generating data, sending data, analyzing data and outputting a result. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. The additional element merely automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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. Dependent claim 2 for instance recites use of an application, a messaging application, and a second instance of the first application. The devices are not part of the claimed scope and these additional elements are again recited at a high level of generality preforming generic computer functions and fail to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 7 recites scanning of the token by the POS device. First, the POS device is outside the scope of the claims, which are not directed to the POS device; not given patentable weight. Second, the merely capturing of data using some scanning feature is again high level and generic amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Per claim 8, the user location determination is again recited at a high level, failing to adequately include any technical elements of how the first device determines location information and analyzes said information. Thus, the dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art
An obvious rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 was not determined to be applicable over the pending claims. As a result, the claims are arguably patentable over prior art based on the latest search and consideration of references.
Tokenization as a whole is a well understood and utilized technique that is well settled in the art. The use of tokens allows for enhanced security measures because an actual user account or user account related data is not utilized to settle a transaction. Likewise, the use of bar-codes to provide the tokens to a merchant point of sale (POS) system via a user’s mobile device is also well settled in the art. Furthermore, the user of mobile applications comprising graphical user interfaces, which is required for the user to interact with the application, are also well settled in the art. Finally, establishing rules and or conditions with regards to a user account or user transactions has also been well established in the art.
To demonstrate that the majority of the claim limitations are well settled in the art, the Examiner points to a first reference; Chinese Patent Application Publication CN 111819555 to Law. Law explicitly discloses utilizing a mobile device of a user along with one or more facilitator devices to register a user, user’s device with a service provider. The user utilizes a downloaded application comprising graphical interfaces that help the user with the registration of the account, including providing user information to identify the user and serve as transaction rules/conditions. Next, Law discloses that once the user has registered with a service provider, the user can begin a transaction involving a generated token. Figures 3, and Figures 7-9 along with all references to Lee’s Disclosure describe most of the instant claim limitations. In order to clearly capture Lee’s Description, at least elements linked to Figure 7 are reproduced below, which again teach the majority of the instant claims:
“Process 700 may begin at 702, where a request to register an account with a system described herein is received. In some embodiments, the request may be submitted by a user of the client device through a mobile application installed on the mobile device. In some embodiments, the request may be transmitted from the authorizing entity to the secure remote transaction server. For example, after submitting a request to register an account with a system described by the user, the request may be transmitted to an authorizing entity. The authorizing entity may then forward the request to the secure remote transaction server. In this example, the authorizing entity may determine whether the user of the client device is authorized to access the account before or after the request is forwarded to the secure remote transaction server.
At 704, the process may involve determining that the user is authorized to access the account. In some embodiments, this may involve the secure remote transaction server or an authorized entity associated with the account contacting the user through a stored communication channel with respect to the account. For example, when creating an account, a user may need to provide a communication channel (e.g., an email address or phone number) to be associated with the account through a learning customer (e.g., KYC) process. In this example, the user may be contacted through a communication channel provided during account creation. In some embodiments, determining that the user is authorized to access the account may involve transmitting a one-time password to the user through the communication channel and having the client device prompt the user for the one-time password. In these embodiments, upon determining that the one-time password entered by the user matches the transferred one-time password, it may be determined that the user is authorized to access the account.
At 706, a cryptographic key pair associated with the account may be generated. At least the public key of the cryptographic key pair may be stored on the secure remote transaction server. At least a private key of the cryptographic key pair may be stored on the client device. In some embodiments, the cryptographic key pair may be generated by the client device. For example, the client device may generate a cryptographic key pair and may then transmit the public key to the secure remote transaction server. In some embodiments, the secure remote transaction server may generate a cryptographic key pair. For example, the secure remote transaction server may generate a cryptographic key pair and may then transmit a private key to the client device. In some embodiments, in addition to storing the public key, the secure remote transaction server may also forward the public key to an authorizing entity associated with the registered account.
At 708, the process may involve generating a token associated with the account. In some embodiments, the token may be generated by a secure remote transaction server. In some embodiments, the token may be generated by the authorizing entity server and transmitted to the secure remote transaction server. The generated token may then be stored in association with the account.
At 710, the process may involve receiving a request to complete a transaction. In some embodiments, the request may be received at the secure remote transaction server from an access device that manages access to one or more resources. The request may include various details relating to the requested transaction and signed authentication indicator. For example, upon initiating the requested transaction, the user may be prompted to provide one or more biometric samples. The biometric sample provided by the user may be processed by a facilitator application on the client device to determine the authenticity of the user. Once determined, the facilitator application may generate an authentication indicator that indicates a likelihood that the user requesting the transaction is a user registered to the account. The client device may then sign the authentication indicator by performing a cryptographic operation on the authentication indicator using the private key generated at 706 and stored on the client device. The signed authentication indicator may be provided to the secure remote transaction server within the request received at 710.
Upon receiving the signed authentication indicator, the secure remote transaction server may verify the signed authentication indicator by performing a second cryptographic operation on the signed authentication indicator using the public key generated at 706 and stored at the secure remote transaction server, at 712. In this process, the second cryptographic operation may cause the creation of an unsigned version of the authentication indicator, which may then be processed to determine whether the user is authenticated. In some embodiments, the unsigned version of the authentication indicator may be compared to an expected authentication indicator result. In some embodiments, the likelihood value in the unsigned version of the authentication indicator may be compared to an acceptable risk threshold to determine whether a transaction should be conducted. For example, the unsigned version of the generated authentication indicator may include a likelihood that the user requesting the transaction is a user registered to the account. In this example, the likelihood may be compared to a predetermined threshold. If the likelihood is greater than a predetermined threshold, the signed authentication indicator may be verified. Upon verifying the signed authentication indicator, the process may involve initiating the requested transaction at 714. This may involve providing the token stored in association with the account at 708 to the access device from which the request was received at 710.”
U.S. PGPUB 2021/0194691 to Mars et al. (Mars) teaches a system includes a first reader for receiving a first ephemeral ID, not permanently associated with a first device, for providing first transaction data thereto, for receiving and authenticating a first token from the first device and for performing a physical action when authenticated, a second reader for receiving a second ephemeral ID, not permanently associated with a second device, for providing second transaction data thereto, for receiving and authenticating a second token from the second device and for performing a physical action when authenticated, and an authentication provider for determining first and second tokens when the first and second smart devices are respectively authorized for transactions in response to a first set of policies specified by a third-party entity not directly coupled to the first or second readers. Mars further teaches utilizing multiple authentication methods and generation of and use of a token to complete a transaction. An apparatus may include a authentication provider service configured to receive a first identifier associated with the first smart device and the first transaction data from the first smart device, configured to determine whether the first user of the first smart device is authorized for the first transaction in response to the first identifier, the first reader identifier, the first indicator, and a first set of policies specified by a third-party entity, wherein the third-party entity is independent of the first provider, and wherein the third-party entity is associated with the first user, configured to determine a first token in response to the first unique data packet, and in response to the first user of the first smart device being determined to be authorized for the first transaction, configured to receive a second identifier associated with the first smart device and the second transaction data from the first smart device, configured to determine whether the first user of the first smart device is authorized for the second transaction in response to the first identifier, the second reader identifier, the second indicator, and the first set of policies specified by the third-party entity, wherein the third-party entity is independent of the first provider, configured to determine a second token in response to the second unique data packet, and in response to the first user of the first smart device being determined to be authorized for the second transaction.
Furthermore, U.S. PGPUB 2016/0277380 to Wagner et al. (Wagner) teaches multiple elements of the instant claims.
Wagner teaches utilizing multiple devices for user authentication and tokenization in order to complete a verification of a user. Wagner teaches receiving, by a server computer, device information and a resource provider identifier from a portable communication device of a user, wherein the resource provider identifier was received by the portable communication device from a base station at a resource provider identified by the resource provider identifier; receiving, by the server computer and from an access device in a transaction, an authorization request message comprising a credential or a token, after a portable transaction device provides the credential or token to the access device; and analyzing, by the server computer, the authorization request message to determine that the user of the portable communicate device is also using the portable transaction device to conduct the transaction at the access device.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0104532 to Scholl et al. teaches oken management computing system for provisioning at least one secure payment token for use in payment transactions is provided. The token management computing system includes a token storage device in communication with a plurality of user computing devices each associated with a respective user, and a token management (“TM”) server. The TM server is programmed to receive a token request for at least one token, generate, upon receiving the token request, the at least one token, wherein the at least one token includes at least one of i) a prepaid token including prepaid funds, ii) multiple tokens each associated with a different user, and iii) a budgeting token associated with a plurality of virtual budget accounts. Scholl also teaches user devices includes applications including interfaces for analyzing user inputs to allow a token generation and usage by another approved user at a specified merchant and based on transaction rules.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699