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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 9, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 101 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed January 9, 2026.
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.
1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noe (US 20160307186 A1; already of record in IDS) in view of Maim (US 20200387893 A1), and in further view Osborn (US 10489781 B1; already of record in IDS).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 16, Noe teaches A communication device, comprising: a system [on a chip (SoC)], wherein the communication device, using the [SoC] (Noe: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0036, 0049, 0058): A method performed by a communication device comprising a system [on a chip (SoC)], the method comprising (Noe: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0036, 0049, 0058): A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for execution by a system [on a chip (SoC)] of a communication device, wherein, upon execution of the instructions the communication device performs procedures comprising (Noe: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0036, 0049, 0058):
generates a near field communication (NFC) field (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0055, 0076 teach(es) The mobile device may also include circuitry that is partly or wholly dedicated to implementing NFC communications functionality of the mobile device; The mobile device, acting in a reader or terminal mode of operation, may transmit an interrogation signal to which the contactless payment card may respond, thereby resulting in a data communications “handshake” between the mobile device and the contactless payment card), displays a prompt to tap a contactless card on the communication device (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0076 teach(es) the user may bring the contactless payment card into proximity with the mobile device. The user may do so in response to a prompt provided on the touchscreen of the mobile device), reads the contactless card after entry into the NFC field (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0076, 0055, 0085 teach(es) the user may be prompted to tap the contactless payment card on the mobile device at a location on the mobile device that is adjacent to the NFC antenna), performs an authentication of the contactless card (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0078, 0088-0089 teach(es) to cryptographically authenticate the contactless payment card), and after a successful authentication of the contactless card: displays one or more user interfaces providing access to one or more additional functionalities (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0088, 0076 teach(es) a process similar to that of FIG. 4 could be employed as part of a two-factor security scheme in connection with an e-commerce purchase transaction; the user may be prompted to tap the contactless payment card on the mobile device at a location on the mobile device that is adjacent to the NFC antenna (FIG. 2)), and performs a payment transaction, based on the access to the one or more additional functionalities (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0088-0089, 0055 teach(es) the system may take another action that reflects successful authentication of the contactless payment card; With these security aspects successfully accomplished, the e-commerce transaction may go forward with a high degree of confidence that the customer is in possession of a valid payment card that corresponds to the payment information used for the e-commerce transaction; The mobile device may also include circuitry that is partly or wholly dedicated to implementing NFC communications functionality of the mobile device).
However, Noe does not explicitly teach a system on a chip (SoC).
Maim from same or similar field of endeavor teaches a system on a chip (SoC) (Maim: Paragraph(s) 0190 teach(es) a system-on-chip (SoC, called “Wallet Node” or “WN,” or even “entity”) integrated into—or coupled with—a connected device such as a smartphone, a connected thing of the Internet of Things (loT) or even a computer, offering guarantees of integrity of execution so that the access restrictions between its different parts cannot be altered or circumvented).
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 Noe to incorporate the teachings of Maim for a system on a chip (SoC).
There is motivation to combine Maim into Noe because Maim’s teachings of system on a chip (SoC) would facilitate offering guarantees of integrity of execution so that the access restrictions between its different parts cannot be altered or circumvented (Maim: Paragraph(s) 0190).
However, the combination of Noe and Maim does not explicitly teach after an unsuccessful authentication of the contactless card: performs a payment transaction using an alternative process distinct from a process performed after a successful authentication.
Osborn from same or similar field of endeavor teaches after an unsuccessful authentication of the contactless card: performs a payment transaction using an alternative process distinct from a process performed after a successful authentication (Osborn: Col. 30, line 43 ~ Col. 31, line 2 teach(es) responsive to the determination of the unsuccessful match, the user may be prompted to tap, swipe, or wave gesture the card again. In this case, there may be a predetermined threshold comprising a number of attempts that the user is permitted to activate the card. Alternatively, the user may receive a notification, such as a message on his or her device indicative of the unsuccessful attempt of card verification and to call, email or text an associated service for assistance to activate the card, or another notification, such as a phone call on his or her device indicative of the unsuccessful attempt of card verification and to call, email or text an associated service for assistance to activate the card, or another notification, such as an email indicative of the unsuccessful attempt of card verification and to call, email or text an associated service for assistance to activate the card).
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 Noe and Maim to incorporate the teachings of Osborn for after an unsuccessful authentication of the contactless card: performs a payment transaction using an alternative process distinct from a process performed after a successful authentication.
There is motivation to combine Osborn into the combination of Noe and Maim because Osborn’s teachings of handling of the unsuccessful attempt of card verification would facilitate card verification processes (Osborn: Paragraph(s) Col. 30, line 43 ~ Col. 31, line 2).
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 17, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 16 above; and Noe further teaches wherein the one or more user interfaces comprises at least one selected from the group of a user interface seeking additional verification, a user interface displaying data, and a user interface for a point of access device (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0088 teach(es) a process similar to that of FIG. 4 could be employed as part of a two-factor security scheme in connection with an e-commerce purchase transaction).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more additional functionalities comprise at least one selected from the group of access to media content, a discount, a promotion, a loyalty benefit, and rewards points.
Osborn from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more additional functionalities comprise at least one selected from the group of access to media content, a discount, a promotion, a loyalty benefit, and rewards points (Osborn: Col. 26, lines 41-58; Col. 28, lines 56-62; Col. 29, lines 1-7 teach(es) the contactless card may be tapped to a device, such as one or more computer kiosks or terminals, to verify identity so as to receive a transactional item responsive to a purchase, such as a coffee. By using the contactless card, a secure method of proving identity in a loyalty program may be established. Securely proving the identity, for example, to obtain a reward, coupon, offer, or the like or receipt of a benefit is established in a manner that is different than merely scanning a bar card; bonus points, loyalty points, reward points, healthcare information, etc., may be written back to the contactless card).
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 Noe and Maim to incorporate the teachings of Osborn for wherein the one or more additional functionalities comprise at least one selected from the group of access to media content, a discount, a promotion, a loyalty benefit, and rewards points.
There is motivation to combine Osborn into the combination of Noe and Maim because Osborn’s teachings of reward points back to the contactless card would facilitate using the contactless cards for the transactions (Osborn: Col. 26, lines 41-58; Col. 28, lines 56-62; Col. 29, lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the access to media content comprises at least one selected from the group of access to entertainment content and access to sports content.
Osborn further teaches wherein the access to media content comprises at least one selected from the group of access to entertainment content and access to sports content (Osborn: Col. 34, lines 13-36; Col. 36, lines 19-33 teach(es) Initiating a card transaction may occur, for example, when the contactless card is presented at the payment terminal for payment of goods or services).
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 Noe, Maim, and Osborn to incorporate the teachings of Osborn for wherein the access to media content comprises at least one selected from the group of access to entertainment content and access to sports content.
There is motivation to combine Osborn into the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn because Osborn’s teachings of using of the contactless card for goods and services would facilitate to use the contactless card (Osborn: Col. 34, lines 13-36; Col. 36, lines 19-33).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein, in authenticating the contactless card, the communication device: receives, from the read of the contactless card, an encrypted cryptogram, generates an authentication session key, generates an encryption session key, decrypts the encrypted cryptogram using the encryption session key, and validates the cryptogram using the authentication session key.
Osborn from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein, in authenticating the contactless card, the communication device: receives, from the read of the contactless card, an encrypted cryptogram (Osborn: Col. 6, lines 13-40 teach(es) the contactless card sends the MAC cryptogram to the application), generates an authentication session key, generates an encryption session key (Osborn: Col. 19, lines 58-63 teach(es) the MAC key may be used for preparing the MAC cryptogram, and the ENC key may be used to encrypt the cryptogram. For example, the MAC session key may be used to prepare the cryptogram, and the result may be encrypted with the ENC key before it is transmitted to the one or more servers), decrypts the encrypted cryptogram using the encryption session key, and validates the cryptogram using the authentication session key (Osborn: Abstract; Col. 19, line 63 ~ Col. 20, line 7 teach(es) The transmitting device can generate a diversified key using the master key, protect a counter value and encrypt data prior to transmitting to the receiving device, which can generate the diversified key based on the master key and can decrypt the data and validate the protected counter value using the diversified key; Decryption of the cryptogram is performed prior to verification of the MAC. The session keys are independently derived at the one or more servers, resulting in a first session key (the ENC session key) and a second session key (the MAC session key). The second derived key (i.e., the ENC session key) may be used to decrypt the data, and the first derived key (i.e., the MAC session key) may be used to verify the decrypted data).
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 Noe and Maim to incorporate the teachings of Osborn for wherein, in authenticating the contactless card, the communication device: receives, from the read of the contactless card, an encrypted cryptogram, generates an authentication session key, generates an encryption session key, decrypts the encrypted cryptogram using the encryption session key, and validates the cryptogram using the authentication session key.
There is motivation to combine Osborn into the combination of Noe and Maim because Osborn’s teachings of cryptogram would facilitate to provide further authentication and added levels of security for transactions (Osborn: Abstract; Col. 6, lines 13-40; Col. 19, line 58 ~ Col. 20, line 7).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and the SoC above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein: the SoC stores an authentication diversified key, an encryption diversified key, and a counter value, the authentication session key is generated using the authentication diversified key, the counter value, and a cryptographic algorithm, and the encryption session key is generated using the encryption diversified key, the counter value, and the cryptographic algorithm.
Osborn further teaches wherein: the SoC stores an authentication diversified key, an encryption diversified key, and a counter value, the authentication session key is generated using the authentication diversified key, the counter value, and a cryptographic algorithm, and the encryption session key is generated using the encryption diversified key, the counter value, and the cryptographic algorithm (Osborn: Abstract; Col. 6, lines 13-40; Col. 19, line 58 ~ Col. 20, line 7, as stated above with respect to claim 5)
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 Noe, Maim, and Osborn to incorporate the teachings of Osborn for wherein: the SoC stores an authentication diversified key, an encryption diversified key, and a counter value, the authentication session key is generated using the authentication diversified key, the counter value, and a cryptographic algorithm, and the encryption session key is generated using the encryption diversified key, the counter value, and the cryptographic algorithm.
There is motivation to combine Osborn into the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn because Osborn’s teachings of cryptogram would facilitate to provide further authentication and added levels of security for transactions (Osborn: Abstract; Col. 6, lines 13-40; Col. 19, line 58 ~ Col. 20, line 7).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Noe further teaches wherein: the communication device receives, from the read of the contactless card, an issuer identifier, and the issuer identifier identifies at least one selected from the group of an issuer of the contactless card and a device associated with the issuer of the contactless card (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0020-0032 teach(es) Send the transaction to the card issuer. The card issuer will then perform their normal authorization, or may perform additional logic as they know the transaction was performed with a token. The card issuer will then send the response to the card scheme, who in turn perform an inverse translation back to the token PAN and send the data back to the acquirer and then the merchant).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above; and Noe further teaches wherein the communication device receives, from the read of the contactless card, a message including the issuer identifier and … (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0044 teach(es) Block 112 in FIG. 1 represents the issuer of the payment account that is to be digitized into the mobile device).
However, the combination of Noe and Maim does not explicitly teach encrypted data.
Osborn from same or similar field of endeavor teaches encrypted data (Osborn: Col. 9, lines 5-13; Col. 13, lines 50-65 teach(es) the transmitting device may encrypt the sensitive data using a symmetric encryption algorithm using the diversified symmetric key, with the output comprising the protected encrypted data. The transmitting device may then transmit the protected encrypted data, along with the counter value, to the receiving device for processing).
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 Noe and Maim to incorporate the teachings of Osborn for encrypted data.
There is motivation to combine Osborn into the combination of Noe and Maim because Osborn’s teachings of encrypted data would facilitate processing of sensitive data (Osborn: Col. 9, lines 5-13; Col. 13, lines 50-65).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above; and Noe further teaches wherein: the one or more user interfaces comprises one or more user interfaces seeking additional verification, and the one or more user interfaces seeking additional verification comprise at least one selected from the group of a user interface requesting submission of login credentials, a user interface requesting age verification, a user interface requesting address information, and a user interface requesting biometric information (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0020-0022, 0074 teach(es) The user may be prompted to authenticate themselves to the device (e.g. with a PIN or biometric); Possible types of user authentication may include biometric authentication (e.g., reading the user's fingerprint) or entry of a PIN required for access to the wallet app).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above; and Noe further teaches wherein the biometric information comprises at least one selected from the group of a facial scan, a fingerprint scan, a retina scan, and a voice input (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0020-0022, 0074, as stated above with respect to claim 11).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above; and Noe further teaches further comprising: after display of the one or more user interfaces, providing access to one or more functionalities, wherein the one or more functionalities comprise at least one selected from the group of access to one or more accounts and the ability to conduct transactions using the one or more accounts (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0090, 0092 teach(es) The payment credentials provisioned to the mobile device may be the same as or different from the payment credentials embodied in the payment card, although it will generally be the case that the payment credentials provisioned to the mobile device provide access to the same payment account that is accessible via the payment card).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above; and Noe further teaches wherein the one or more accounts comprise at least one selected from the group of a rewards account, a merchant account, a utilities account, a financial account, a brokerage account, a travel account, and a point of access account (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0090, 0092, as stated above with respect to claim 13).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above; and Noe further teaches wherein the one or more accounts comprise at least one selected from the group of a credit card, a debit card, and a gift card (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0103 teach(es) the term “payment system account” includes a credit card account or a deposit account that the account holder may access using a debit card).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more additional functionalities comprise access to at least one selected from the group of a building, a room, a locker, a storage unit, and a vehicle.
Osborn from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more additional functionalities comprise access to at least one selected from the group of a building, a room, a locker, a storage unit, and a vehicle (Osborn: Col. 31, lines 56-65 teach(es) the contactless card may comprise at least one of a building access card, a credit card, a debit card, an identification card, a loyalty program card, and a transportation card).
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 Noe and Maim to incorporate the teachings of Osborn for wherein the one or more additional functionalities comprise access to at least one selected from the group of a building, a room, a locker, a storage unit, and a vehicle.
There is motivation to combine Osborn into the combination of Noe and Maim because Osborn’s teachings of building access card would facilitate the usage of the contactless card (Osborn: Col. 31, lines 56-65).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more additional functionalities comprise access to at least one selected from the group of a loyalty program status, a reward points balance, a frequent flyer mile balance, a redemption option, and a past redemption.
Osborn from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more additional functionalities comprise access to at least one selected from the group of a loyalty program status, a reward points balance, a frequent flyer mile balance, a redemption option, and a past redemption (Osborn: Col. 26, lines 41-58; Col. 28, lines 56-62; Col. 29, lines 1-7, as stated above with respect to claim 3)
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 Noe and Maim to incorporate the teachings of Osborn for wherein the one or more additional functionalities comprise access to at least one selected from the group of a loyalty program status, a reward points balance, a frequent flyer mile balance, a redemption option, and a past redemption.
There is motivation to combine Osborn into the combination of Noe and Maim because Osborn’s teachings of reward points back to the contactless card would facilitate using the contactless cards for the transactions (Osborn: Col. 26, lines 41-58; Col. 28, lines 56-62; Col. 29, lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Noe, Maim, and Osborn teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above; and Noe further teaches wherein: the one or more user interfaces comprise one or more user interfaces for a point of access device, and the one or more user interfaces for the point of access device comprise at least one selected from the group of a user input interface, a biometric user interface, and a photographic input interface (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0020-0022, 0074, as stated above with respect to claim 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that “Osborn does not discuss, after an unsuccessful authentication, performing a payment transaction using an alternative process distinct from a process performed after a successful authentication,” examiner respectfully argues that Osborn teaches the features as discussed above with respect to the 103 rejections (Osborn: Col. 30, line 43 ~ Col. 31, line 2). It is recommended for the applicant to amend the claims further with more technical details and contexts of alternative process to overcome the Osborn reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Law (US 20220147974 A1) teaches Secure Tamper Resistant Smart Card, SoC, including biometric, fingerprint, cryptographic functionality, keys, tapping, additional authentication, accounts, access to, for example, secure areas of a building or land (e.g., in government or secret areas), and access account.
Cook (US 11551200 B1) teaches Systems And Methods For Activating A Transaction Card, including contactless card, SoC, prompt, tap, secondary authentication information process, biometric, facial, voice, and accounts.
Koeberl (US 20160379207 A1) teaches Secured Credential Aggregator, including SoC, encrypt, smart card, and EMV.
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
Prosecution Insights