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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 23, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, Claims 1-9 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine), Claims 10-17 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process), and Claims 18-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a manufacture).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based on consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding Claims 1 and 18:
Claims 1 and 18 are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receive, from a merchant system, a request to authorize a transaction, the request comprising at least one token associated with a user; determine, based at least on the at least one token, that the user requested a haptic personal identification number (PIN); transmit, to a payment device comprising a haptic driver and associated with the user, data associated with a haptic PIN, wherein the haptic driver generates, based at least on the data associated with the haptic PIN, at least one vibration of a first duration and an end sequence comprising at least one vibration of a second duration that differs from the first duration, thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN; receive, from the payment device, a responsive PIN; determine that the responsive PIN matches the haptic PIN; and in response to determining that the responsive PIN matches the haptic PIN, automatically authorize the transaction, wherein the haptic PIN is not transformed to an alphanumeric PIN by the system.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “system”, “haptic”, “device”, “the payment device comprising a haptic driver”, and “automatically” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical sales activities or behaviors, because entities including merchant and user interact with each other and exchange information for authorizing transactions.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A system for authorizing a transaction, comprising: at least one processor configured to:”, “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising programming instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:”, “system”, “haptic”, “device”, “the payment device comprising a haptic driver”, and “automatically”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, 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 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under the Step 2B, 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 in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claims 10 is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving, with at least one processor, a request to authorize a transaction, the request comprising at least one token associated with a user; querying, with at least one processor, a database to determine that the user is registered for a haptic personal identification number (PIN) based at least on the at least one token; in response to determining that the user is registered for the haptic PIN, transmitting, with at least one processor, data associated with a haptic PIN to a payment device associated with the user, the payment device comprising a haptic driver wherein the haptic driver generates, based at least on the data associated with the haptic PIN, at least one vibration of a first duration and an end sequence comprising at least one vibration of a second duration that differs from the first duration, thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN; receiving, with at least one processor, a user input comprising a pattern; determining that the pattern matches the haptic PIN by comparing, with at least one processor, the pattern to the haptic PIN; and in response to determining that the pattern matches the haptic PIN, authorizing, with at least one processor, the transaction, wherein the at least one processor does not transform the haptic PIN to an alphanumeric PIN.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “processor”, “database”, “haptic”, “device”, and “the payment device comprising a haptic driver” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical sales activities or behaviors, because entities including merchant and user interact with each other and exchange information for authorizing transactions.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A computer-implemented method for authorizing a transaction, comprising:”, “processor”, “database”, “haptic”, “device”, and “the payment device comprising a haptic driver”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, 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 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under the Step 2B, 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 in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20:
Dependent claims 3 and 11 only further elaborate the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements.
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 12-17, and 19-20 include additional limitations, for example, “device”, “system”, and “processor” (Claim 2); “haptic” (Claims 4 and 12); “processor”, “haptic”, “application”, and “device” (Claims 5 and 13); “processor” and “haptic” (Claims 6, 14, and 19); “processor” and “haptic” (Claims 7 and 15); and “processor”, “database”, and “haptic” (Claims 8, 16, and 20); and “processor”, “system”, and “device” (Claims 9 and 17), but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they require no more than generic computer structures or signals to be executed, and do not recite any Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or Improvements to any other technology or technical field.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation or implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurian (US 20170364893 A1) in view of Palle (US 20210029112 A1), in view of Mene (US 20230394935 A1) and Jenson (WO 2022066197 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, Kurian teaches A system for authorizing a transaction, comprising (Kurian: Abstract): A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising programming instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to at least one processor configured to: (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0003, 0008, 0040):
receive, from a merchant system, a request to authorize a transaction, the request comprising at least one token associated with a user (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0028, 0057, 0059 teach(es) the process flow includes receiving a request from a user to perform a transaction with a merchant; tokens or portions of tokens may be used as a stand in for a user account number, user name, pin number, routing information related to the financial institution associated with the account, security code, or other like information relating to the user account); determine, based at least on the at least one token, that the user requested a … personal identification number (PIN) (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0057, 0059, 0068, 0085-0086 teach(es) tokens or portions of tokens may be used as a stand in for a user account number, user name, pin number, routing information related to the financial institution associated with the account, security code, or other like information relating to the user account; The system uses a tokenized PIN to authenticate a check at a point of sale (POS) either utilizing existing POS readers or modified readers configured to enable recognition of a check's number to be read); transmit, to a payment … associated with the user, data associated with a … PIN, … (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0096 teach(es) embodiments also receive a PIN change request from the user; update a table of PINs with a new PIN based on the PIN change request; and transmit a successful PIN change message (i.e., data associated with the haptic PIN) to the user); receive, from the payment device, a responsive PIN; determine that the responsive PIN matches the … PIN; and in response to determining that the responsive PIN matches the … PIN, automatically authorize the transaction, … (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0013, 0003, 0008, 0094 teach(es) generating a PIN based on the determined check data fields; receiving user input of a user PIN; comparing the generated PIN with the inputted user PIN; if the generated PIN matches the inputted user PIN, proceeding with the transaction; and if the generated PIN does not match the inputted user PIN, cancelling the transaction).
However, Kurian does not explicitly teach a haptic personal identification number (PIN) and wherein the haptic PIN is not transformed to an alphanumeric PIN by the system.
Palle from same or similar field of endeavor teaches a haptic personal identification number (PIN) (Palle: Paragraph(s) 0025-0027, 0052-0053 teach(es) The registration device includes a taptic receiver. The taptic receiver can receive a taptic pattern created by the customer. The taptic pattern is a pattern represented by taps or movements by the customer in a distinct pattern or rhythm. In some embodiments, the taptic pattern can be input on a taptic membrane configured to receive taps, haptic input, and/or taptic patterns; The registration device includes a customer information component. The customer information component is configured to receive other information about the customer. For example, other information can include name, account number, social security number, a PIN, date of birth, age, security questions, and/or the like), wherein the haptic PIN is not transformed to an alphanumeric PIN by the system (Palle: Paragraph(s) 0036 teach(es) the validation engine includes an error metric which provides a minimum threshold with which to compare the taptic pattern to the recorded taptic pattern).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Palle for a haptic personal identification number (PIN) and wherein the haptic PIN is not transformed to an alphanumeric PIN by the system.
There is motivation to combine Palle into Kurian because Palle’s teachings of haptic input would facilitate using PIN for authorizing a transaction (Palle: Paragraph(s) 0025-0027, 0052-0053).
However, the combination of Kurian and Palle does not explicitly teach a payment device comprising a haptic driver and associated with the user, data associated with a … PIN, wherein the haptic driver generates, based at least on the data associated with the haptic PIN, … (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0096 teach(es) comprising at least one vibration of a first duration and an end sequence comprising at least one vibration of a second duration that differs from the first duration, thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN.
Mene from same or similar field of endeavor teaches a payment device comprising a haptic driver and associated with the user, data associated with a … PIN, wherein the haptic driver generates, based at least on the data associated with the haptic PIN, … (Mene: Paragraph(s) 0017-0018, 0042, 0048-0050, 0064 teach(es) A haptic effect can be defined by an input waveform (e.g., a sine wave, a square wave, a saw wave, etc.) (i.e., data associated with the haptic PIN). The input waveform can specify the frequency/amplitude over time required to generate vibration associated the haptic effect. The input waveform can be used to control a haptic actuator (i.e., haptic driver) which can be configured to generate vibration corresponding to the haptic effect. Haptic actuators receive power from a power source (e.g., a battery or power supply). Control signals (e.g., defined based on the waveform of a haptic effect and feedback signals during vibration) can be issued to modulate power provided to a haptic actuator for a designated time period to generate a desired haptic effect) comprising at least one vibration of a first duration and an … sequence comprising at least one vibration of a second duration that differs from the first duration … (Mene: Paragraph(s) 0017-0018, 0042, 0048-0050, 0064 teach(es) A haptic effect can be defined by an input waveform (e.g., a sine wave, a square wave, a saw wave, etc.). The input waveform can specify the frequency/amplitude over time required to generate vibration associated the haptic effect. The input waveform can be used to control a haptic actuator which can be configured to generate vibration corresponding to the haptic effect. Haptic actuators receive power from a power source (e.g., a battery or power supply). Control signals (e.g., defined based on the waveform of a haptic effect and feedback signals during vibration) can be issued to modulate power provided to a haptic actuator for a designated time period to generate a desired haptic effect).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Kurian and Palle to incorporate the teachings of Palle for a payment device comprising a haptic driver and associated with the user, data associated with a … PIN, wherein the haptic driver generates, based at least on the data associated with the haptic PIN, …comprising at least one vibration of a first duration and an sequence comprising at least one vibration of a second duration that differs from the first duration, thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN.
There is motivation to combine Mene into the combination of Kurian and Palle because Mene’s teachings of haptic actuators would facilitate generating haptic effects, which can be used for control signals (Mene: Paragraph(s) 0017-0018).
However, the combination of Kurian, Palle, and Mene does not explicitly teach an end sequence.. thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN.
Jenson from same or similar field of endeavor teaches an end sequence.. thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN (Jenson: Paragraph(s) 0037-0038 teach(es) fingerprint sensing module may select the defined period of time to be slightly shorter than the fingerprint sensing time period, such that haptic feedback module outputs a discrete haptic signal at the end of the fingerprint sensing time period).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Kurian, Palle, and Mene to incorporate the teachings of Palle for an end sequence.. thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN.
There is motivation to combine Jenson into the combination of Kurian, Palle, and Mene because Jenson’s teachings of sequence of haptic signals for an end of sequence would facilitate determining of a specific operation (Jenson: Paragraph(s) 0037-0038).
Regarding Claim 10, Kurian teaches A computer-implemented method for authorizing a transaction, comprising (Kurian: Abstract):
receiving, with at least one processor, a request to authorize a transaction, the request comprising at least one token associated with a user (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0028, 0057, 0059 teach(es) the process flow includes receiving a request from a user to perform a transaction with a merchant; tokens or portions of tokens may be used as a stand in for a user account number, user name, pin number, routing information related to the financial institution associated with the account, security code, or other like information relating to the user account); …; …, transmitting, with at least one processor, data associated with a … PIN to a payment device associated with the user, … (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0096 teach(es) embodiments also receive a PIN change request from the user; update a table of PINs with a new PIN based on the PIN change request; and transmit a successful PIN change message (i.e., data associated with the haptic PIN) to the user); receiving, with at least one processor, a user input comprising a …; determining that the … matches the … PIN by comparing, with at least one processor, the … to the … PIN; and in response to determining that the … matches the … PIN, authorizing, with at least one processor, the transaction, … (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0013, 0003, 0008, 0094 teach(es) generating a PIN based on the determined check data fields; receiving user input of a user PIN; comparing the generated PIN with the inputted user PIN; if the generated PIN matches the inputted user PIN, proceeding with the transaction; and if the generated PIN does not match the inputted user PIN, cancelling the transaction).
However, Kurian does not explicitly teach querying, with at least one processor, a database to determine that the user is registered for a haptic personal identification number (PIN) based at least on the at least one token; in response to determining that the user is registered for the haptic PIN…, the haptic PIN, a pattern, and wherein the at least one processor does not transform the haptic PIN to an alphanumeric PIN.
Palle from same or similar field of endeavor teaches querying, with at least one processor, a database to determine that the user is registered for a haptic personal identification number (PIN) based at least on the at least one token; in response to determining that the user is registered for the haptic PIN…, the haptic PIN, a user input comprising a pattern (Palle: Paragraph(s) 0025-0027, 0052-0053 teach(es) The registration device includes a taptic receiver. The taptic receiver can receive a taptic pattern created by the customer. The taptic pattern is a pattern represented by taps or movements by the customer in a distinct pattern or rhythm. In some embodiments, the taptic pattern can be input on a taptic membrane configured to receive taps, haptic input, and/or taptic patterns; The registration device includes a customer information component. The customer information component is configured to receive other information about the customer. For example, other information can include name, account number, social security number, a PIN, date of birth, age, security questions, and/or the like), and wherein the at least one processor does not transform the haptic PIN to an alphanumeric PIN (Palle: Paragraph(s) 0036 teach(es) the validation engine includes an error metric which provides a minimum threshold with which to compare the taptic pattern to the recorded taptic pattern).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Palle for querying, with at least one processor, a database to determine that the user is registered for a haptic personal identification number (PIN) based at least on the at least one token; in response to determining that the user is registered for the haptic PIN…, the haptic PIN, a pattern, and wherein the haptic PIN is not transformed to an alphanumeric PIN by the system.
There is motivation to combine Palle into Kurian because Palle’s teachings of haptic input would facilitate using PIN for authorizing a transaction (Palle: Paragraph(s) 0025-0027, 0052-0053).
However, the combination of Kurian and Palle does not explicitly teach the payment device comprising a haptic driver wherein the haptic driver generates, based at least on the data associated with the haptic PIN, at least one vibration of a first duration and an end sequence comprising at least one vibration of a second duration that differs from the first duration, thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN.
Mene from same or similar field of endeavor teaches the payment device comprising a haptic driver wherein the haptic driver generates, based at least on the data associated with the haptic PIN, and the haptic PIN comprising at least one vibration of a first duration and an … sequence comprising at least one vibration of a second duration that differs from the first duration, … (Mene: Paragraph(s) 0017-0018, 0042, 0048-0050, 0064 teach(es) A haptic effect can be defined by an input waveform (e.g., a sine wave, a square wave, a saw wave, etc.) (i.e., data associated with the haptic PIN). The input waveform can specify the frequency/amplitude over time required to generate vibration associated the haptic effect. The input waveform can be used to control a haptic actuator (i.e., haptic driver) which can be configured to generate vibration corresponding to the haptic effect. Haptic actuators receive power from a power source (e.g., a battery or power supply). Control signals (e.g., defined based on the waveform of a haptic effect and feedback signals during vibration) can be issued to modulate power provided to a haptic actuator for a designated time period to generate a desired haptic effect).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Kurian and Palle to incorporate the teachings of Palle for comprising at least one vibration of a first duration and an … sequence comprising at least one vibration of a second duration that differs from the first duration, …, the payment device comprising a haptic driver wherein the haptic driver generates, based at least on the data associated with the haptic PIN.
There is motivation to combine Mene into the combination of Kurian and Palle because Mene’s teachings of haptic actuators would facilitate generating haptic effects, which can be used for control signals (Mene: Paragraph(s) 0017-0018).
However, the combination of Kurian, Palle, and Mene does not explicitly teach an end sequence.. thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN.
Jenson from same or similar field of endeavor teaches an end sequence.. thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN (Jenson: Paragraph(s) 0037-0038 teach(es) fingerprint sensing module may select the defined period of time to be slightly shorter than the fingerprint sensing time period, such that haptic feedback module outputs a discrete haptic signal at the end of the fingerprint sensing time period).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Kurian, Palle, and Mene to incorporate the teachings of Palle for an end sequence.. thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN.
There is motivation to combine Jenson into the combination of Kurian, Palle, and Mene because Jenson’s teachings of sequence of haptic signals for an end of sequence would facilitate determining of a specific operation (Jenson: Paragraph(s) 0037-0038).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kurian, Palle, Mene, and Jenson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Kurian further teaches wherein the responsive PIN is transmitted from the payment device to the merchant system and received by the at least one processor from the merchant system (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0066, 0072; Figs. 5-6).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, the combination of Kurian, Palle, Mene, and Jenson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above; and Kurian further teaches wherein the at least one token comprises at least two tokens (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0059-0060).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, the combination of Kurian, Palle, Mene, and Jenson teaches all the limitations of claims 3 and 11 and the haptic PIN above; and Kurian further teaches wherein at least one first token of the at least two tokens comprises data relating to the … PIN, and wherein at least one second token of the at least two tokens comprises data relating to account information associated with the user (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0059-0060 teach(es) In a case where a PIN is tokenized, the tokenized PIN may be four (4) digits, six (6) digits or otherwise; the digital wallet may store some or all of the user account information (e.g., account number, user name, pin number, or the like), including the user account number, but presents the one or more tokens instead of the user account information when entering into a transaction with a merchant).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, the combination of Kurian, Palle, Mene, and Jenson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 and the haptic PIN above; and Kurian further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed or configured to transmit the … PIN via an application stored on the payment device (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0040 teach(es) the user input system includes a communication interface, a processor, a memory having an user application stored therein, and a user interface. In such embodiments, the communication interface is operatively and selectively connected to the processor, which is operatively and selectively connected to the user interface and the memory. In some embodiments, the user may use the user application to execute processes).
Regarding Claims 6, 14, and 19, the combination of Kurian, Palle, Mene, and Jenson teaches all the limitations of claims 5, 13, and 18 and the haptic PIN above; and Kurian further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed or configured to generate a notification that the … PIN has been received in response to receiving the … PIN (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0011, 0096 teach(es) the system to receive a PIN change request from the user; update a table of PINs with a new PIN based on the PIN change request; and transmit a successful PIN change message to the user).
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, the combination of Kurian, Palle, Mene, and Jenson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 and the haptic PIN above; and Kurian further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed or configured to: prior to receipt of the request to authorize the transaction, receive a request to generate the … PIN; and generate the at least one token (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0011-0013 teach(es) to receive a PIN change request from the user; update a table of PINs with a new PIN based on the PIN change request; and transmit a successful PIN change message to the user).
Regarding Claims 8, 16, and 20, the combination of Kurian, Palle, Mene, and Jenson teaches all the limitations of claims 7, 15, and 18 and the haptic PIN above; and Kurian further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed or configured to store, in a database, an association between the request to generate the … PIN and the at least one token (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0059, 0066 teach(es) In a case where a PIN is tokenized, the tokenized PIN may be four (4) digits, six (6) digits or otherwise; the tokenization service provides a token to the user and stores an association between the token and the user account number in a secure token and account database. The token may be stored in the user's payment device (e.g., on the digital wallet) or stored on the cloud or other service through the tokenization service).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, the combination of Kurian, Palle, Mene, and Jenson teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above; and Kurian further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed or configured to transmit a notification to the merchant system and/or the payment device based on authorizing the transaction (Kurian: Paragraph(s) 0013, 0061, 0091, 0094 teach(es) if the generated PIN matches the inputted user PIN, proceeding with the transaction; and if the generated PIN does not match the inputted user PIN, cancelling the transaction; When the device digital wallet is used in a transaction the token stored on the device is used to enter into the transaction with the merchant).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that “systems making use of a haptic PIN, as claimed, provide increased security for transactions, by providing a varied form of multi-factor authentication,” examiner respectfully argues that the claimed invention is directed to generating a haptic PIN, receiving a responsive PIN, and determining match between the haptic PIN and the responsive PIN. Exchanging PINs and matching them without any more technical details and contexts can be performed manually by people. The features such as “increased security” and “multi-factor authentication” are not claimed. In addition, the vibrations of first/second duration are not used in any step or interactions among the elements. It is recommended for the applicant to amend the claims further with more technical details and contexts of the haptic/responsive PINs and matching of them.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that “no cited art discloses or suggests the claimed "at least one vibration of a first duration and an end sequence comprising at least one vibration of a second duration that differs from the first duration, thereby signaling an end of the haptic PIN",” examiner respectfully argues that the Mene reference teaches that control signals (e.g., defined based on the waveform of a haptic effect and feedback signals during vibration) can be issued to modulate power provided to a haptic actuator for a designated time period to generate a desired haptic effect. It would be obvious that a generated haptic PIN include forms of vibrations according to the input waveform (Mene: Paragraph(s) 0017-0018, 0042, 0048-0050, 0064). In order to differentiate the invention from the cited references, it would be recommended for the applicant to amend the claims further with more technical details and contexts of the vibration of first/second duration and their usages at least for the matching the PIN or other steps of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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 at (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.
/CLAY C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699