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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant's submission filed on 7/20/26/2026. The claims 1-11 and 21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 6-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam et al. (US Pub No 2017/0357964) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub No 2017/0372313).
Prior art Subrahmanyam teaches claim:
A system for processing a data transfer comprising:
a first entity configured to [request] a first identifier by providing information relating to the first entity (e.g., merchant server already have the MID, which the MID teaches the first identifier relating to the first entity ¶ 0022-0024);
a second entity configured to request a second identifier and to link the second identifier to the first identifier, wherein the first and second identifiers are distinguished from payment tokens (e.g., receiving the request from the merchant server during a transaction ¶ 0020 requesting a TRID to be assigned to the merchant server with associated MID ¶ 0031);
a first server configured to generate a message comprising at least the first identifier, the second identifier, and a name associated with the first identifier (e.g., “during a transaction, merchant server 130 may transmit a token request to TSP server 140 for TSP server 140 to generate and provide a digital token to serve as a virtual payment mechanism to complete the transaction. The token request may comprise the MID associated with the merchant, and a consumer identifier.” ¶ 0020, “TSP server 140 may also may receive and store a consumer identifier and/or a transaction account associated with a consumer” teaches the generating of a message to request a token ¶ 0022-0023); and
a second server configured to authenticate the data transfer based at least on the information contained in the message (e.g., integral to the TSP server is an issuer server, teaching a second server, for receiving authorization request and “Issuer server 150 may compare the account identifier in the digital token with the account identifiers stored in issuer server 150. In response to the TRID and MID combination in the authorization request matching a TRID and MID combination stored in issuer server 150, and/or the account identifier in the digital token matching an account identifier stored in issuer server 150, issuer server 150 may send an authorization response to merchant server 130 approving the transaction.” ¶ 0026-0027).
Subrahmanyam discloses the claimed subject matter as discussed above with the merchant server, as a first entity, having access to the MID (teaching the claim’s first identifier), but does not explicitly disclose the first entity configured to request the first identifier. However, analogous art from the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the first entity request the first identifier (e.g., request merchant ID registration ¶ 0121 & Fig. 7#722). Therefore, based on Subrahmanyam in view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kim to the system of Subrahmanyam in order to “ provide payment architecture capable of changing an offline payment to an online payment” Kim @ (¶ 0009) . Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
With respect to claim 2, the prior arts above further teaches wherein the first entity is verified based at least on the first and second identifiers (e.g., authorizing request based on TRID and MID combination @ Subrahmanyam ¶ 0037).
With respect to claim 3, the prior arts above teaches wherein the first server is further configured to generate a token based at least on the first identifier and the second identifier (e.g., generating a digital token @ Subrahmanyam ¶ 0034 & Figs. 3A-B).
With respect to claim 4, the prior arts above further teaches wherein the message further comprises a name associated with the second identifier (e.g., the token request message comprising the merchant’s MID and a consumer identifier @ Subrahmanyam ¶ 0023 and the TSP sever storing transaction information and merchant/consumer identifier and account information ¶ 0024 and comprising encryption @ ¶ 0085 & 0116) and a cryptogram (e.g., transmitting a token and a cryptogram @ Kim ¶ 0143-0144).
With respect to claim 6, the prior arts above further teaches wherein the first entity and the second entity are the same (e.g., merchant server @ Subrahmanyam ¶ 0019-0020 & Fig. 1 #130).
With respect to claim 7, the prior arts above further teaches wherein the first server generates the first identifier upon receiving a request from the first entity (e.g., generating the MID @ Kim ¶ 0119-0121).
With respect to claim 8, the prior arts above further teaches wherein the first server generates the first identifier receiving a request from the second entity on behalf of the first entity (e.g., generating the MID @ Kim ¶ 0119-0121 where the first entity and second may be the same entity per claim 6 above).
With respect to claim 9, the prior arts above further teaches wherein the first server generates the second identifier upon receiving a request from the second entity (e.g., @ Subrahmanyam ¶ 0020 & ¶ 0031).
With respect to claim 10, the prior arts above further teaches wherein the data transfer is a transaction processed by the first or second entity for a customer (e.g., @ Subrahmanyam ¶ 0041-0044).
With respect to claim 11, the prior arts above further teaches wherein the first server is a transaction- enabling service provider and the second server is an issuer (e.g., issuer server @ Subrahmanyam ¶ 0026-0028).
With respect to claim 21, the prior arts above further teaches wherein the first entity or the second entity is configured to initiate the data transfer by sending, to the first server, the first and second identifiers, the name associated with the first identifier, and the token (e.g., merchant server sending authorization request to issuer server comprising the TRID and account identifier @ Subrahmanyam ¶ 0037 and transaction identifier ¶ 0040).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam et al. (US Pub No 2017/0357964) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub No 2017/0372313), and further in view of Koletsky et al. (US Pub No 2017/0161733).
With respect to claim 5, the prior arts above further teaches the transmitting of a cryptogram but do not explicitly disclose validating result of the cryptogram. However, analogous art from the same field of endeavor, Koletsky teaches validating the cryptogram (@ Koletsky ¶ 0089-0091). Therefore, based on Subrahmanyam and Kim, and in view of Koletsky, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Koletsky to the system of Subrahmanyam and Kim in order to provide “greater enhancement in the validation of a token requesting entity” (@ Koletsky ¶ 0039) . Hence, it would have been obvious to combine the references to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, LINGLAN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/CHAU LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights