Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 3, 2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on November 3, 2025.
Claims 11-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are pending.
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260219 for references purposes only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 1-10 and 21-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the account number in the digital wallet.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “an account number in the digital wallet.” Claims 21 and 30 are similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites “a nonce.” This phrase is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to “the nonce” previously recited, or to “a second nonce.” For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “the nonce.” Claim 24 is similarly rejected.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 21-25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Royyuru et al. (US 2021/0279699) in view of Scott et al. (US 2022/0020016).
Claims 1, 21, 30
Royyuru discloses:
a non-transitory memory (memory, see [0012]); and
one or more hardware processors (processors, see [0012]) coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions (instructions, see [0012]) from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
detecting a request (request, see [0047]) to add an account of a user (eligible user account, see [0047]) with a payment processing service (e.g. Wells Fargo, Capital One, see [0047]) associated with the system to a digital wallet (wallet, see [0049]) of the user, wherein the digital wallet is hosted by a digital wallet platform separate from the system (“pushed” in, see abstract);
determining proxy wallet data for the account of the user, wherein the proxy wallet data comprises an identifier (full PAN suffix data, see [0049]) uniquely identifying the account to a backend payment processing network (network, see [0041]) and that enables contactless payment processing via short range wireless communications using the account via the payment processing service;
transmitting the proxy wallet data (full PAN suffix data, see [0049]) to the digital wallet platform (wallet, see [0049-0050]) in association with the request;
identifying the account of the user with the backend payment processing network that utilizes the identifier for processing transactions with the payment processing service, wherein the transmitting and the identifying causes, in the digital wallet of the user, a device account number (device identifier, see [0051]) to be associated with usage of the account through the payment processing service;
receiving, from the digital wallet platform, a digital certificate (wallet certificate, see [0051]) and information corresponding to a nonce (nonce, see [0053]) generated by the digital wallet platform;
encrypting data (encrypting PAN data, wallet data, issuer nonce, see [0056]) associated with the digital certificate and the information corresponding to the nonce with the identifier;
determining an encrypted identifier (encrypted PAN, see [0067]) that represents the account number in the digital wallet using the backed payment processing network and based on the encrypted data;
entering the encrypted identifier (asset identifier, see [0138]) to a field that represents an account number during adding of the account to the digital wallet;
activating the payment processing service for the account with the digital wallet of the user (adding the account to the pay wallet, see [0051]);
generating a digital token (token, see [0061]) associated with the digital wallet (pay wallet, see [0061]).
Royyuru does not disclose:
Wherein the digital token… account;
Enabling… user;
Detecting… communications;
Processing… transfer.
Scott teaches:
wherein the digital token is transferred via the short range wireless communications (short-range communications, see [0105]) for the contactless payment processing using the account;
enabling the contactless payment processing (contactless payment transactions, see [0110]) for the digital wallet in an application on a device of the user;
detecting a transfer of the digital token (payment token, see [0124]) to a data processing terminal via the short range wireless communications (short-range communications, see [0105]);
processing a transaction (transaction, see [0124]) having the digital token (payment token, see [0124]) used for the contactless payment processing by the data processing terminal based on the transfer.
Royyuru discloses a memory, processors, detecting a request to add an account, determining proxy wallet data, transmitting the proxy wallet data, identifying the account of the user, receiving a digital certificate and nonce, encrypting data, determining an encrypted identifier, entering the encrypted identifier, activating payment processing service for the account with the wallet, and generating a token. Royyuru does not disclose the token is transferred via short-range wireless communications, enabling contactless payment processing, detecting a transfer of the token, and processing a transaction, but Scott does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the instant digital issuance of Royyuru with the the token is transferred via short-range wireless communications, enabling contactless payment processing, detecting a transfer of the token, and processing a transaction of Scott because 1) a need exists for reducing time and costs associated with existing physical card payment systems (see Royyuru [0002]); and 2) a need exists for secure execution of electronic signal exchanges (see Scott [0003]). Having the token transferred via short-range wireless communications, enabling contactless payment processing, detecting a transfer of the token, and processing a transaction allows for secure execution of electronic signal exchanges.
Claims 2, 22
Furthermore, Royyuru discloses:
the determining the proxy wallet data comprises receiving an application programming interface (API) response (API call, see [0111]) from a backend of the system that generates the proxy wallet data.
Claims 3, 23
Furthermore, Royyuru discloses:
the proxy wallet data is encrypted (encrypting, see [0051]) prior to transmitting to the digital wallet platform using a cryptographic key (public key, see [0051]) associated with the digital wallet platform.
Claims 4, 24
Furthermore, Royyuru discloses:
prior to transmitting the proxy wallet data, the operations further comprise:
passing the request (push provision request, see [0051]) to the digital wallet platform;
receiving a public digital certificate (wallet certificate, see [0051]) with a nonce (nonce, see [0053]) and a nonce digital signature (digital signature, see [0051]) from the digital wallet platform; and
providing, to the backend for an association with the proxy wallet data, an API request (API call, see [0111]) associated with the public digital certificate, the nonce, and the nonce digital signature.
Claims 5, 25
Furthermore, Royyuru discloses:
the providing the public digital certificate to the backend comprises:
encrypting the public digital certificate (wallet data, including digital certificate, see [0056]), the nonce (nonce, see [0056]), and the nonce digital signature with a primary account number of the account (digitally sign the PAN data, see [0056]),
wherein the providing to the backend via the API request (API call, see [0111]) includes the encrypted public digital certificate, the encrypted nonce, the encrypted nonce digital signature, and the encrypted primary account.
Claims 7, 27
Furthermore, Royyuru discloses:
the identifier is an identification number for a financial institution (entity identifier, see [0011]) that is associated with a near field communications payment processing service, wherein the digital wallet platform requires a funding identifier (full PAN, see [0056]) for adding the account to the digital wallet, and wherein the funding identifier is supplied using the identification number from the proxy wallet data.
Claims 8, 28
Furthermore, Royyuru discloses:
prior to the activating, the operations further comprise:
performing an eligibility check of at least one of the user or the account (eligible accounts, see [0047]) for use of the account via the digital wallet,
wherein the activating is performed based on the eligibility check (adding the account to the pay wallet, see [0051]).
Claims 9, 29
Furthermore, Royyuru discloses:
receiving a request for the transaction (transaction, see [0095, 0114]) using the account, wherein the request for the transaction is routed to the payment processing service associated with the system using the identifier detokenized from the digital token.
Claim 10
Furthermore, Scott teaches:
the payment processing service is associated with an installment payment service and validates transactions for the account during the contactless payment processing via the payment processing services on a single transaction basis (single transaction, see [0246, 0255]) based on one or more risk models.
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Royyuru et al. (US 2021/0279699), in view of Scott et al. (US 2022/0020016), and further in view of Le Saint et al. (US 2016/0065370).
Claims 6, 26
Royyuru in view of Scott discloses the limitations above. Furthermore, Royyuru discloses:
the proxy wallet data further comprises a cryptographic one-time password (password, see [0065]).
Royyuru in view of Scott does not disclose:
An ephemeral… service.
Le Saint teaches:
an ephemeral public key (ephemeral public key, see [0098]) associated with at least the payment processing service.
Royyuru in view of Scott discloses a memory, processors, detecting a request to add an account, determining proxy wallet data, transmitting the proxy wallet data, identifying the account of the user, receiving a digital certificate and nonce, encrypting data, determining an encrypted identifier, entering the encrypted identifier, activating payment processing service for the account with the wallet, generating a token, the token is transferred via short-range wireless communications, enabling contactless payment processing, detecting a transfer of the token, and processing a transaction. Royyuru in view of Scott does not disclose an ephemeral public key associated with the payment service, but Le Saint does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the instant digital issuance of Royyuru, in view of Scott, with the ephemeral public key of Le Saint because a need exists for maintaining security of payment and other transactions in NFC-enabled mobile phones (see Le Saint [0002]). Having an ephemeral public key may assist in reducing risks of compromise (see Le Saint [0098]).
Response to Arguments
103 arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amendments.
Please see revised rejection.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that functional recitation(s) using the word and/or phrases “for”, “adapted to”, or other functional language (e.g. see claims 1, 21, and 30 which recite “to be associated”) have been considered but are given little patentable weight because they fail to add any structural limitations and are thereby regarded as intended use language. To be especially clear, all limitations have been considered. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed product must result in a structural difference between the claimed product and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it reads on the claimed limitation. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) ("The manner or method in which such a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.”); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See also MPEP §§ 2106 II (C.), 2114 and 2115. Unless expressly noted otherwise by Examiner, the claim interpretation principles in the paragraph apply to all examined claims currently pending.
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.