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 Status
The claims filed 2/5/2026 are entered.
Claims 1-13, 15, and 17-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are currently amended.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9, 11, and 13 are previously presented.
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 12, 15, and 18-20 are original.
Claims 14 and 16 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn in view of the current amendments and Applicant’s arguments.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the prior rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the current amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “the dynamic transaction card” (3 instances) with only having previously recited “a physical transaction card”. The limitation is understood as referring to the same card.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 7, 10-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourez (US 2011/0047075 A1) in view of Wurmfield (US 2019/0114623 A1), further in view of Halevi (US 2011/0047038 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fourez discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a backend system from a mobile device, location information corresponding to a transaction terminal associated with initiating a transaction request (see para. 0030-0031);
determining, by the backend system, that a location-specific security concern exists from the location information and the initiated transaction (see para. 0034, 0038);
transmitting, from the backend system to the mobile device, a first message to output a visual indication that the location-specific security concern exists (see para. 0034, 0038);
Fourez discloses outputting a visual indication as discussed above. Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Wurmfield teaches instructing a physical dynamic transaction card to output the visual indication by wireless communication with the physical dynamic transaction card (see para. 0047-0048, 0200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez to include the feature of Wurmfield to illustrate the alert in a manner that may be understood by a user with an indicated visual impairment (see Wurmfield, para. 0200).
Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Halevi teaches:
transmitting, from the backend system to the mobile device, a second message comprising a temporary transaction card number, the second message instructing the dynamic transaction card to utilize the temporary transaction card number (see para. 0020, 0038); and
receiving, at the backend system, a transaction request from the transaction terminal, the transaction request associated with the temporary transaction card number (see para. 0020, 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez to include the feature of Halevi to increase transaction security (see Halevi, para. 0001).
Regarding claim 2, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein: the location information is received as part of the transaction request (see Fourez para. 0030-0031); wherein the dynamic transaction card comprises: one or more light emitting elements; one or more antennas; one or more processors; and a memory in communication with the one or more processors and comprising instructions allowing the dynamic transaction card to connect with one or more mobile devices and one or more transaction terminals via the one or more antennas and operative to control the one or more light emitting elements (see Wurmfield, para. 0047-0048; Figs. 2, 4, 12-14).
Regarding claim 3, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein: the location information corresponds to a current location of a first transaction terminal of the one or more transaction terminals (see Fourez, para. 0030-0031); and the dynamic transaction card comprises a Europay-Mastercard-Visa (EMV) chip operable to conduct EMV transactions (see Wurmfield para. 0005, 0059).
Regarding claim 4, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein the backend system instructs the dynamic transaction card to output the visual indication that the location-specific security concern exists through a transaction terminal in communication with the dynamic transaction card (see Wurmfield, para. 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 5, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein the backend system instructs the dynamic transaction card to output the visual indication that the location-specific security concern exists through a mobile device associated with the dynamic transaction card (see Wurmfield, para. 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 7, Fourez discloses wherein the location information comprises a merchant identifier corresponding to a merchant associated with the transaction request (see para. 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 10, Fourez discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a mobile device, location data corresponding to a transaction terminal and received as part of an attempted transaction (see para. 0030-0031);
determining, by the mobile device, a location information from the location data (see para. 0030-0031);
outputting, from the mobile device to a backend system, the location information (see para. 0030-0031);
receiving, from the backend system at the mobile device, an indication that a location- specific security concern exists (see para. 0034, 0038);
displaying a visual indication that the location-specific security concern exists (see para. 0034, 0038);
Fourez discloses outputting a visual indication as discussed above. Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Wurmfield teaches instructing a dynamic transaction card to output the visual indication by wireless communication with the dynamic transaction card (see para. 0047-0048, 0200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez to include the feature of Wurmfield to illustrate the alert in a manner that may be understood by a user with an indicated visual impairment (see Wurmfield, para. 0200).
Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Halevi teaches:
receiving, from the backend system and at the mobile device, a temporary transaction account number for use with the transaction terminal where the security concern exists (see para. 0020, 0038); and
transmitting, from the mobile device and to the dynamic transaction card, the temporary transaction account number for use when effectuating a purchase at the transaction terminal where the security concern exists (see para. 0020, 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez to include the feature of Halevi to increase transaction security (see Halevi, para. 0001).
Regarding claim 11, Fourez discloses wherein determining the location information further comprises: identifying a current location of the mobile device based on the GPS (see para. 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 12, Fourez discloses determining a merchant identifier based on a merchant location corresponding the current location of the mobile device; and outputting the merchant identifier as the location information to the backend system (see para. 0030-0033).
Regarding claim 13, Fourez discloses displaying the visual indication that the location-specific concern exists prior to completing the attempted transaction using the dynamic transaction card (see para. 0034, 0038, 0040).
Regarding claim 15, Fourez discloses wherein the location information comprises a merchant identifier (see para. 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 17, Fourez discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a mobile device, a location information corresponding to a current location of a transaction terminal (see para. 0030-0031);
transmitting, from the mobile device to a backend system, the location information (see para. 0030-0031);
determining, by the backend system, from the location information, that a location- specific security concern exists (see para. 0034, 0038);
displaying a visual indication that the location-specific security concern exists (see para. 0034, 0038);
Fourez discloses outputting a visual indication as discussed above. Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Wurmfield teaches instructing a physical dynamic transaction card to output the visual indication by wireless communication with the physical dynamic transaction card, (see para. 0047-0048, 0200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez to include the feature of Wurmfield to illustrate the alert in a manner that may be understood by a user with an indicated visual impairment (see Wurmfield, para. 0200).
Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Halevi teaches:
receiving, from the backend system and at the mobile device, a temporary transaction account number for use with the transaction terminal (see para. 0020, 0038); and
transmitting, from the mobile device and to the dynamic transaction card, the temporary transaction account number for use when effectuating a purchase at the transaction terminal where the security concern exists (see para. 0020, 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez to include the feature of Halevi to increase transaction security (see Halevi, para. 0001).
Regarding claim 18, Fourez discloses wherein the location information is associated with a transaction request (see para. 0030-0033).
Regarding claim 19, Fourez discloses wherein the location information comprises a merchant identifier corresponding to a merchant associated with the transaction request (see para. 0030-0033).
Regarding claim 20, Fourez discloses determining a merchant identifier based on a merchant location corresponding the current location of the mobile device; and outputting the merchant identifier as the location information to the backend system (see para. 0030-0033).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourez (US 2011/0047075 A1) in view of Wurmfield (US 2019/0114623 A1), further in view of Halevi (US 2011/0047038 A1), further in view of Teuwen (US 2014/0291392 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Teuwen teaches wherein the dynamic transaction card receives information from a transaction terminal associated with the transaction request and transmits the information to a mobile device associated with the dynamic transaction card (see abstract, para. 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez further to include the feature of Teuwen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for interoperability between various payment solutions (see Teuwen, para. 0008).
Claims 8, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourez (US 2011/0047075 A1) in view of Wurmfield (US 2019/0114623 A1), further in view of Halevi (US 2011/0047038 A1), further in view of Jivraj (US 2015/0348042 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Jivraj teaches wherein the location-specific security concern is that the current location has a higher crime rate (see para. 0120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez further to include the feature taught by Jivraj.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to identify a risk level (see Jivraj, para. 0120).
Regarding claim 9, Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Jivraj teaches wherein the location-specific security concern is that the transaction terminal is potentially fraudulently compromised (see para. 0169-0170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez further to include the feature taught by Jivraj.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to assign a risk level to merchant when proximate to a point-of-sale terminal (see Jivraj, para. 0169-0170).
Regarding claim 21, Fourez does not explicitly disclose, but Jivraj teaches wherein the backend system comprises a database of potential security issues by location, and determining, by the backend system, that a location-specific security concern exists comprises searching the database for security concerns related to the location of the transaction terminal (see para. 0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fourez further to include the feature taught by Jivraj.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to incorporate information indicative of prior instances of fraud (see Jivraj, para. 0087).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quigley (US 9,183,480 B1) discloses a method and apparatus for using temporary data with a magnetic stripe card to reduce incidents of fraudulent card transactions. A first set of temporary data, valid until an occurrence of an event, is generated and applied to a magnetic stripe area of a magnetic stripe card (“the card”). The card can be used for a first transaction, which is authorized based on a verification that the first set of temporary data is valid, or was valid and is not expired. The transaction is processed based on an account associated with the card. The event occurs, rendering the first data item invalid, and a second set of temporary data is generated and applied to the magnetic stripe area.
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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights