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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2025 is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 13, 2025.
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 Maim of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, Claims 1-8 are drawn to a device which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine), Claims 9-15 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process), and Claims 16-20 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 Maim 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, 9, and 16:
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “generates a near field communication (NFC) field, displays a prompt to tap a contactless card on the communication device, reads the contactless card after entry into the NFC field, performs an authentication of the contactless card, and after a successful authentication of the contactless card: displays one or more user interfaces providing access to one or more additional functionalities, and performs a payment transaction.”
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 “near field communication (NFC) field”, “communication device”, “contactless card”, “displays one or more user interfaces”, and “functionalities” 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 a card is processed with data or information for a payment transaction.
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 communication device, comprising: a system on a chip (SoC), wherein the communication device, using the SoC:”, “A method performed by a communication device comprising a system on a chip (SoC), the method comprising:”, “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:”, “communication field”, “communication device”, and “contactless card”. 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 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20:
Dependent claims 4, 13-15, and 18-19 only further elaborate the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-12, 17, and 20 include additional limitations, for example, “user interfaces” and “point of access device” (Claims 2, 10, and 17); “communication device” and “functionalities” (Claim 3); “communication device”, “contactless card”, “encrypted”, “cryptogram”, and “encryption session key” (Claim 5); “encryption diversified key” and “cryptographic algorithm” (Claim 6); “communication device”, “contactless card”, and “device” (Claim 7); “communication device” (Claim 8); “user interfaces” and “biometric” (Claim 11); “biometric” (Claim 12); and “user interfaces”, “point of access”, and “biometric” (Claim 20), 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 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 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.
1-2, 7, 9-15, 16-17, and 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).
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: 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 (Noe: Paragraph(s) 0088-0089 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).
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).
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 17, the combination of Noe and Maim 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 7, the combination of Noe and Maim 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 11, the combination of Noe and Maim 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 and Maim 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 and Maim 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 and Maim 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 and Maim 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 20, the combination of Noe and Maim 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).
Claim(s) 3-6, 8, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noe in view of Maim, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, and in further view Osborn (US 10489781 B1; already of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Noe and Maim 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 and Maim 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 8, the combination of Noe and Maim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein, after an unsuccessful authentication, the communication device performs the payment transaction.
Osborn from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein, after an unsuccessful authentication, the communication device performs the payment transaction (Osborn: Col. 30, line 43 ~ Col. 31, line 2 teach(es) 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 wherein, after an unsuccessful authentication, the communication device performs the payment transaction.
There is motivation to combine Osborn into the combination of Noe and Maim because Osborn’s teachings of handing of unsuccessful attempts of card verification would facilitate to increase the customer’s experience with the transactions (Osborn: Col. 30, line 43 ~ Col. 31, line 2).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Noe and Maim 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 and Maim 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that “the elements recited in claim 1 includes specific processes performed by the communication device, using the SoC, to generate an NFC field, read the contactless card after entry into the NFC field, performs an authentication of the contactless card, and display one or more user interface providing access to one or more additional functionalities,” examiner respectfully argues that the additional elements including SoC, NFC, and contactless card are recited without technical details and context connecting their functionalities among one another and with respect to the steps, enough to provide any improvements of the functioning of the computer or other technology or technical field.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103 that “Noe does not teach or suggest an SoC, much less an SoC in a communication device where the SoC is used to perform the steps recited in claim 1,” examiner respectfully argues that Maim reference from same or similar field of endeavor teaches the features (Maim: Paragraph(s) 0190).
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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