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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushevsky et al. (US 20130221092) in view of Hird et al. (US 20150019442).
Kushevsky et al. teaches a processor circuit, memory, performing short range
communication exchange with a contactless card to receive data associated with an account,
receiving the data by a first application (paragraph [0010]+ and [0018]+).
FIG. 4 provides instructions/ images to tap a card near the surface of the Mobil device (POS equivalent absent structural limitations differentiating a mobile device from a POS terminal), and thus indications and presentations are merely design variation.
Data is exchanged with the card (abstract+).
First data is stored in a memory location (abstract+ where information is received from the card). Though silent to a clipboard, the Examiner notes that a clipboard is merely interpreted as a designated part of a memory that can be copied from. As the stored card data is used to perform a transaction, it would have been obvious to provide the data in fields (copy/paste into fields), in order to provide the required data in a required format to perform a transaction (FIG. 5+) or alternatively a data buffer so as to temporarily store the data before transmission to the server is also able to read on storing the first portion of data.
Kushevsky et al. teaches that the transaction card information is read from the card, stored to the card, and sent to the server, wherein the card information can be name, credit card number, expiration date, cvv, etc. (paragraph [0098]). Thus, Kushevsky et al. teaches an exchange of data with the card being done at the mobile device. A first portion of data is stored in the card (implicit as it is read) and the first portion is sent to perform authentication at the server. Thus Kushevsky et al. teaches storing and sending the same data, and thus does not teach storing a first portion of data and sending a second portion of data, both from the exchange of data with the card.
An indication of successful performance of the authentication is received from the server via the card security credential being received and stored (abstract+).
Detecting a request to copy the first data from the memory location of the memory to at least one field and enabling the copying in response to the authentication is interpreted as occurring, such as once a card is successfully loaded electronically on the mobile device, data can be copied from it such as used in transactions as is known and conventional in the art, when mobile devices are used for transactions (see FIG. 7). For purpose of examination, the Examiner has interpreted that the mobile device reads on a POS terminal absent specific limitations to the contrary, as the mobile device can be used for transactions as known in the art, and for IOU per FIG. 9+. The use of the card for transactions occurring from the mobile device obviates the copying to at least one field, such as when the mobile device provides the card data to perform the transaction.
Hird et al. teaches a card can be loaded into the user terminal 100, which is analogous to the recited POS terminal loading cards. The card 110 generates a cryptogram 126 used to authenticate the transaction to the card issuer (server) 30. As the card communicates the data to the terminal, this is interpreted as the second portion of data being used for authentication.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to send only specific data for authentication, such as based on security for example.
Re claim 2, account number, expiration, CVV, etc. has been discussed above.
Re claim 3, paragraph [0117]+ of Kushevsky et al. teaches an encrypted PIN (identifier) is verified via communication with a server prior to storage of the card information on the mobile device. Further, the Examiner note that limitations of a type of data are not patentably distinguishing for an apparatus claim, as a structure need only be capable of performing data communications to read on the limitation. The card provides the encrypted PIN and thus is interpreted as reading on a cryptogram of data. Hird et al. teaches a cryptogram as discussed above, wherein a MAC is a type of cryptogram, which would have been obvious to choose as type of known cryptogram for its purpose of security.
Re claim 6, NDEF and 1443 are known means for NFC communication and would have been obvious to employ as a preferred and accepted way of wireless card communication in compliance with known standards and techniques.
Re claim 7, though silent, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to paste to appropriate fields as part of providing the necessary data for a transaction.
Re claim 8, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1.
Re claims 9-10, the limtaitosn have been discussed above re claims 2-3.
Re claims 13-14, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 6-7.
Re claim 15-17 the limtaitosn have been discussed above re claims 1-3.
Re claims 20-21, the limitations have bene discussed above re claims 6-7.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushevsky et al./Hird et al. as discussed above, in view of Mosko et al. (US 20160019110).
The teachings of Kushevsky et al./ Hird et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the MAC comprising a header and secret.
Mosko et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0054] with a return header and secret.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for known MAC structure for expected results.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushevsky et al./Hird et al./ Mosko et al., as discussed above, in view of Ronda et al. (US 20110302646).
The teachings of Kushevsky et al./ Hird et al./ Mosko et al. have been discussed above but are silent to random numbers and a diversified key.
Ronda et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0111]+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to use known format MAC for expected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new art above.
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876