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 on October 20, 2025.
Claims 1-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 have been examined in this application.
No new information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, regarding claim objection and drawing objections have been considered and are persuasive. The objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 14-15, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended include “technical components and technical operations that extend far beyond any fundamental economic principle or commercial interaction, and are not directed concepts that could be performed in the human mind, but instead to a technology of managing deposits, creating communication links, and updating accounts by using electronic circuitry of the MCD or SC, and not directed to the abstract idea of simply updating balance accounts… The technical steps describe technical activities to solve the technical problem by providing improvements for the transfer of digital cash by allowing smart card users to make top-ups or top- downs of the balance of the local cash deposit on the smart card, which cannot be performed by the human mind, at all… Even if still considered abstract, the additional elements such as the digital cash transfer system, a mobile communication device, a smart card, a computerized payment service provider, and secure electronic circuitry to name a few, do not equate to an abstract idea implemented with general computers. In this regard, the claims indicate a technical tool (electronic circuitry) that specifically solve the aforementioned technical problem, which provides that the claims are also integrated in a practical application and recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.” Id., 14-15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are analyzed as a whole, MPEP 2106, and are determined to amount to an abstract idea of updating accounts as a result of a transfer of funds without significantly more. The abstract idea is categorized under two separate abstract groupings; which Applicants address only one of the two. The abstract idea is determined to fall under a mental process and captures certain methods of organizing human activity. Contrary to Applicants’ arguments, the additional elements do not capture any technical solution to a technical solution rooted in computer technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements, as argued, amount to mere generic computers/devices that are off-the-shelf and used to merely apply the abstract idea. In other words, the additional elements automate the abstract idea. Two human using pen and paper and in communication can transfer funds between one another, and they can either memorize their balance post transfer or use a paper to record such transfer. Likewise, the claims explicitly capture the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because they explicitly link the abstract idea to business relations and sales activities which are further captured by commercial interactions. The mere transfer of the funds, as claimed, is a clear definition of a sales activity. The relationship between the sender and receiver is another clear link of business relations; relation to allow transfer between parties. 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.
Applicant further argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant argues that the “use of the specifically defined electronic circuitry that exceed human capacity and other processing steps of claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 clearly implements any alleged abstract idea into a practical application in any case by solving the problem discussed above using the alleged abstract idea. Thus, even if considered abstract (which notion Appellant respectfully disagrees with), the claimed invention is nevertheless patent eligible since it clearly involves significantly more than just the abstract idea by applying it in a practical application.” Id., 14-15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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. The dependent claims include elements noted above such as the POS, certificates, public key, cryptographic key, private and public key, and computerized payment service provider. However, these elements in combination 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 additional elements further describe the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 16-17, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but are moot as they do not apply to the relied upon references.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a trusted execution environment or secure element configured to manage…,” “the payment service provider is configured to communicate…,” “the point of sales terminal is configured for local point-to-point communication… and is configured to transmit…,” “the payment service provider is further configured to receive…,” “the payment service provider is further configured for wide area network data communication…,” “the point of sales terminal is further configured for local point-to-point communication…,” “the mobile communication device is configured, when being the cash sender, to: determine…,” “the mobile communication device… configured, in connection with the communication of cash transfer data over the local point-to-point communication link, to exchange their certificates…,” “the cash sender is configured to sign…,” “the cash receiver is configured to verify…,” “the mobile communication device is configured for supporting…,” “the mobile communication device is further configured for: participating…” in claims 1-12, 14-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 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 2-3, 5, 8, and 19-20 the claims recite “wherein the payment service provider is configured to communicate with the mobile communication device by wide area network data communication to increase the balance of the local digital wallet in the mobile communication device by transferring funds from an account associated with the user of the mobile communication device to an account associated with the payment service provider…” and “ transferring funds from an account associated with the user of the smart card to an account associated with the payment service provider,” and “transferring funds from an account associated with the user of the mobile communication device to an account associated with the payment service provider.” Emphasis added.
Claims rejected depend from claim 1 and 2 respectively and are rejected because it is not clear whether the “transferring of funds” is the same or different than the “cash transfer data” or “transfer of a monetary amount” recited in claim 1. Likewise, claims that depend from claim 2 recite multiple transfers of funds, wherein it’s not clear whether these transfers of funds are the same or different than those in claim 2. Overall, the claim utilize various terminologies, are inconsistent and when drawn on paper, the steps of claims 1-8 seem contradictory and overcome ambiguous. As a result, the claims and all dependent claims are rejected. Any teaching of a single transfer of funds from a mobile device to a smart card and transfer of funds from a server and a POS will be determined as reading on the claims.
A clear, antecedent basis linked step by step recitation of what Applicants’ deem as their invention would likely resolve the unclear scope. How many transactions are actually occurring, which entities are involved in these transactions, are the transactions done together, separately, or how? What is the difference between sending funds between a smart card and a mobile device versus a smart card and a POS and a server and a mobile device, meaning how is this important or linked as a whole so that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to follow the step-by-step process of the many fund transfers and cash transfers.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under the same rational as above.
Claim limitation “a trusted execution environment or secure element configured to manage…,” “the payment service provider is configured to communicate…,” “the point of sales terminal is configured for local point-to-point communication… and is configured to transmit…,” “the payment service provider is further configured to receive…,” “the payment service provider is further configured for wide area network data communication…,” “the point of sales terminal is further configured for local point-to-point communication…,” “the mobile communication device is configured, when being the cash sender, to: determine…,” “the mobile communication device… configured, in connection with the communication of cash transfer data over the local point-to-point communication link, to exchange their certificates…,” “the cash sender is configured to sign…,” “the cash receiver is configured to verify…,” “the mobile communication device is configured for supporting…,” “the mobile communication device is further configured for: participating…” in claims 1-12 and 14-15 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No clear structure is determined to be associated in the Specification with the limitations at issue. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of updating balance of an account responsive to transfer of funds from one account to another without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity and metal processes. More specifically, the abstract idea is characterized under commercial interactions, including sales activities and business relations, and concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and carrying out these mental concepts using pen and paper. The mere settlement of a transaction between entities, including communication between the entities highlights the business relations and sales activity concepts. Likewise, the claims can be carried out using a human mind and with a plurality of users. Aside from the additional elements, which will be discussed later in the patent eligibility analysis, the claims amount to merely humans’ communication with one another to settle a transaction and updating each human’s monetary balance via mental memory or via a table using pen and paper.
Claim 1, in pertinent part, recites:
A… cash transfer system comprising:
[first entity] having…
a trusted execution environment or secure element configured to manage a local… wallet and support… payments from the… digital wallet… and a [second entity]…
…configured to manage a cash deposit and support… payments from the cash deposit…
wherein the… [first entity] and the… [second entity] are configured to:
establish a local point-to-point communication link…
communicate cash transfer data over the established local point-to-point communication link, the cash transfer data defining a local transfer of a monetary amount from one of the… [first entity] and the… [second entity], being a cash sender, to the other of the… [first entity] and the… [second entity], being a cash receiver; and
update, by the… [first entity’s] trusted execution environment… a balance of the local… wallet, and update, by the… [second entity], a balance of the cash deposit to reflect the local transfer of the monetary amount, such that the balance of the cash sender is reduced while the balance of the cash receiver is increased.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: A digital cash transfer system, a mobile communication device, a wide area network interface and a short-range wireless data communication interface; a Near Field Communication interface, a local digital wallet, a smart card, secure element circuitry, digital payments, and a point of sales terminal. 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 manipulating data, sending and receiving data, storing data, establishing a connection, analyzing the data, and determining an outcome including updating data. 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.
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. The dependent claims include elements noted above such as the POS, certificates, public key, cryptographic key, private and public key, and computerized payment service provider. However, these elements in combination 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 additional elements further describe the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Application Publication WO 2018/185787 to Venkatesan (Venkatesan), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0267486 to Mitra et al. (Mitra).
Per claims 1, 15, 17, and 19, Samuelsson teaches all of the claim limitations:
A digital cash transfer system comprising: a mobile communication device (MCD) having: at least one of a wide area network interface and a short-range wireless data communication interface; a Near Field Communication interface [Abstract, Paragraphs 30-33, Figure 2 and related text]; and
a smart card (SC) having: a Near Field Communication interface; and a secure electronic circuitry configured to manage a cash deposit and support digital payments from the cash deposit at point of sales terminals via the Near Field Communication interface [Paragraphs 21-29 and Figure 1 and related text and Paragraphs 34-35 and Figure 3],
wherein the MCD and the SC are configured to: establish a local point-to-point communication link between the MCD’s Near Field Communication interface and the SC’s Near Field Communication interface [Paragraphs 7-8, 21-24 and Figures 1-2];
communicate cash transfer data over the established local point-to-point communication link, the cash transfer data defining a local transfer of a monetary amount from one of the MCD and the SC, being a cash sender, to the other of the MCD and the SC, being a cash receiver [Paragraphs 8-16, 21-29]; and
update, by the MCD’s trusted execution environment or secure element, a balance…, and update, by the SC’s secure electronic circuitry, a balance of the cash deposit, to reflect the local transfer of the monetary amount, such that the balance of the cash sender is reduced while the balance of the cash receiver is increased [Paragraphs 16, and 26 and claim 1].
Venkatesan does not explicitly disclose:
Although Venkatesan teaches use of digital wallet and a mobile device and a smart card to transfer funds, Venkatesan does not disclose that the funds are transferred to a digital wallet or more specifically that the mobile device has “a trusted execution environment or secure element configured to manage a local digital wallet and support digital payments from the local digital wallet by wide area network data communication and/or short-range wireless data communication via the wide area network interface and/or short-range wireless data communication interface,” and updating the balance of the local digital wallet.”
Mitra teaches a trusted execution environment or secure element configured to manage a local digital wallet and support digital payments from the local digital wallet by wide area network data communication and/or short-range wireless data communication via the wide area network interface and/or short-range wireless data communication interface and updating the balance of the local digital wallet [Paragraphs 0048-0051, 0116].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Venkatesan, which teaches sending funds between devices and based on accounts having been established to accept the transfer of funds, to include the teachings of Mitra to explicitly disclose utilizing a mobile applet or digital wallet to transfer said funds in motivation of having a place within the mobile device for the user to access the funds and utilize the funds or manage the funds.
Examiner notes that the claim limitations contain various intended use limitations and conditional limitations, which could limit the patentable weight given to the limitations. Applicants should focus on reciting positive claim limitations only. Furthermore, recitation of elements such as NFC in a mobile device and in a smart card need to be done while distinguishing that each device has its own distinct NFC antenna because claiming “the NFC” is ambiguous since under BRI, it’s not clear to which NFC “the NFC” is referring to EVEN IF you claim that each device has an NFC communication interface. Finally, the claim limitations are too wordy and could instead be written in more concise manner in which the scope is still captured without leaving room for confusion / clarity issues and broad interpretation.
Per claims 2 and 20, Venkatesan teaches further comprising: a computerized payment service provider; and a point of sales terminal, wherein the payment service provider is configured to communicate with the mobile communication device by wide area network data communication to increase the balance of the local digital wallet in the mobile communication device by transferring funds from an account associated with the user of the mobile communication device to an account associated with the payment service provider, wherein the point of sales terminal is configured for local point-to-point communication with the smart card to receive a digital payment made at the point of sales terminal account associated with the payment service provider
Per claims 3, Venkatesan teaches wherein the payment service provider is further configured for wide area network data communication with the point of sales terminal, and the point of sales terminal is further configured for local point-to-point communication with the smart card, to increase the balance of the cash deposit in the smart card by transferring funds from an account associated with the user of the smart card to an account associated with the payment service provider [Paragraphs 21-37].
Per claim 4, Venkatesan teaches wherein, when the mobile communication device is the cash sender and the smart card is the cash receiver, the balance of the local digital wallet is reduced by the transferred monetary amount whereas the balance of the cash deposit is increased by the transferred monetary amount, thereby enabling the user of the smart card to make digital payments in a higher total amount than prior to receiving the transferred monetary amount [Paragraphs 21-37].
Per claim 5, Venkatesan teaches wherein the mobile communication device is configured, when being the cash sender, to: determine that the balance of the local digital wallet is less than the monetary amount to be transferred to the smart card, and communicate with the payment service provider by wide area network data communication to increase the balance of the local digital wallet in the mobile communication device by transferring funds from an account associated with the user of the mobile communication device to an account associated with the payment service provider [Paragraphs 21-37].
Per claim 6, Venkatesan teaches wherein, when the smart card is the cash sender and the mobile communication device is the cash receiver, the balance of the local digital wallet is increased by the transferred monetary amount whereas the balance of the cash deposit is reduced by the transferred monetary amount, the transferred monetary amount
Per claim 7, Venkatesan teaches wherein the balance
Per claim 8, Venkatesan teaches wherein: the mobile communication device has a certificate which comprises a public cryptographic key, signed by the payment service provider , the mobile communication device (MCD) further having a private cryptographic key , associated with its public cryptographic key and stored in local memory, the smart card has a certificate which comprises a public cryptographic key, signed by the payment service provider , the smart card (SC) further having a private cryptographic key , associated with its public cryptographic key and stored in local memory, the payment service provider has a certificate which allows verification of the certificates of the mobile communication devicesign the cash transfer data
Per claim 9, Venkatesan teaches wherein the smart card comprises a credit card-sized substrate carrying the secure electronic circuitry [Paragraphs 16, 21 and Figure 1].
Per claim 10, Venkatesan teaches wherein the smart card is a smart chip that contains the secure electronic circuitry [Paragraphs 16-28 and Figure 1]..
Per claim 11, Venkatesan teaches wherein the smart chip is dimensioned as a subscriber identity module to fit in a subscriber identity module reader in a second mobile communication device carried by the user of the smart card [Paragraphs 16-32 and Figure 1].
Per claim 12, Venkatesan teaches using the smart card to settle transaction with other devices; however, Venkatesan does not explicitly disclose wherein the smart card is compatible with EMV, (Europay, Mastercard and VISA) payments.
Mitra teaches wherein the smart card is compatible with EMV, (Europay, Mastercard and VISA) payments [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Venkatesan, to include the teachings of Mitra to explicitly teach wherein the smart card complies with EMV standards to allow transaction to be carried out with any system as a result of its compliance with the standards of the EMV system.
Per claim 14, Venkatesan teaches the secure electronic circuitry in the smart card accommodating biometric reference data pertaining to one or more biometric features of the user of the smart card, wherein the smart card is configured to: read a biometric sample from the user of the smart card; and perform a biometric authentication of the biometric sample, the biometric authentication being concluded as successful when the biometric sample matches the biometric reference data, wherein successful biometric authentication of the user of the smart card is a requisite for the smart card to participate in the local transfer of the monetary amount [17, 26, 32 and claim 7].
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