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 § 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (claim 8) limitations of presentation (displaying), exchanging data, storing first portion of data in memory, sending to a server a second portion of data, receiving an indication of authentication of the second portion from a server, detecting a request to copy the first portion of the data, and copying. These limitations fall under organized human activity as it pertains to financial transactions and/or mental concepts. Also, the Examiner notes that claims directed to collecting information, analyzing information by “steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more,” and presenting the results of collecting and analyzing information fall “within the realm of abstract ideas.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing cases). Even further, routine data collection and analysis steps that have been traditionally performed by banks and people depositing checks namely reviewing checks, recognizing relevant data, checking for errors, and storing the resultant data. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“And banks have, for some time, reviewed checks, recognized relevant data such as the amount, ac-count number, and identity of account holder, and stored that information in their records.”). “[I]nvoking a computer merely as a tool” to “improve a fundamental practice or abstract process” does not make an otherwise abstract claim non-abstract, Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020), nor does limiting the claim to “a particular field of use or technological environment,” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In claim 8, the limitations of displaying a tap indication is seen as pre solution activity, merely displaying information via a generic computer component. The limitations of performing contactless data exchange is merely routine data gathering for performing the abstract idea. Storing in a memory is part of the organized human activity and is abstract, and/or mental processes similar to pen and paper usage. The limitations of sending to a server for authentication is abstract and similar to the concepts of Electric Power v. Alstom ("collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Receiving data is routine data gathering. Detecting and copying is generic computer implementation of abstract organized human activity steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are performed using generic computer components to perform the abstract limitations.. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a server, memory, processor, interface, display device, etc. are merely generic computer components which cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is not an improvement to a computer. The type of clipboard is just further specifying details of the format of data, and is just specifying details of the abstract idea without an improvement to technology/ computer. Re claims 9-13, the limitations are drawn toward the type/ format of data, and thus are merely specifying details of the abstract idea. Re claim 14, the limitations are drawn to copying pasting specific information, which as discussed above falls under organized human activity/ mental concepts with a generic computer to match data formats. Re claims 15-21 and 1-7 (corresponding computer readable medium and system claims), the limitations have been discussed above.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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) and Folk et al. (US 8556166).
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 (computing device/ equivalent absent structural limitations differentiating a mobile device from a computing device), and thus indications and presentations are merely design variation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing data, such as for instructional purposes.
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 one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to send only specific data for authentication, such as based on security for example.
Kushevsky et al./ Hird et al. is silent to the clipboard (memory) being HTML language based.
Folk et al. teaches that transaction information in a computing device can be stored in various formats, including text, rich text, and HTML (see claim 4).
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 have a preferred data format for storage/ displaying/ organizing based on system constraints, for example.
Re claim 2, account number, expiration, CVV, etc. has been discussed above. Further, the Examiner notes that the type of data has been discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, that pasting the data would include with HTML such as when the pasting desires to copy/ paste the code level data. As the claim 2 is drawn to the device claim, the intended use of the clipboard (such as how to copy/ paste) is not germane to the clipboard itself. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to copy the HTML language, based on an intended use, such as to copy code level data. Re claims 2, 9, and 16, the Examiner notes that the prior art structurally meets the claimed limitations, as it stores HTML data, and thus the use of that data such as copying the HTML tags, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the desired data and output, noting that the prior art structure supports such limitations, as it structurally stores HTML. Merely using the HTML tags by copying and pasting is an intended use that is obviated by the desired output of data.
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./ Folk et al. as discussed above, in view of Mosko et al. (US 20160019110).
The teachings of Kushevsky et al./ Hird et al./ Folk 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./ Folk 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./ Folk 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
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights