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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 16-January-2024. No priority has been claimed in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of the effective filing date as the priority date.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17-June-2025 and 20-April-2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
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. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1, 10, 17, the claim recites “a … method to [register] a contactless card, the … method comprising:
receiving, by [an entity], a first request to associate the contactless card with an account, the first request received via an [application];
authenticating, by the [entity], that the first request was received from an account holder of the account;
assigning two [security identifiers] to the contactless card, wherein the two [security identifiers] are based on uniquely identifiable information associated with the contactless card;
based on establishing authenticity of the account holder, determining, by the [entity], a unique identifier of the account holder associated with the account; and
sending, by the [entity], a second request to the [application] to write the unique identifier of the account holder and the two [security identifiers] to the contactless card.”
The limitation of the claims recited above, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. server, processor, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, specifically under fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. The method recited above is a process of registering a contactless card with an account (i.e. associating an account identifier with the card), wherein the contactless card may be a transaction card as disclosed by Specification [0038] “card (e.g., a credit card, debit card, automated teller machine (ATM) card, gift card, payment card, smart card, identification card, etc.)” and the account may be a bank account [0020] “The account can be a bank account” or a financial account [0038] “The account 140 can be a financial account”, wherein “programming” or registering a transaction card to a financial account is fundamental economic principle or practice, and the steps associated with the registration (e.g. receive request, authenticate account holder, determine account identifier, and send request) may be commercial or legal interactions, which are all under certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “computer”, “server”, “computing device”, “cryptographic key”, “processor”, “memory”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These additional elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, but are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities, such as: receive data, authenticate data, and send data, as disclosed by Figure 9 and Specification:
[0116] “As shown in FIG. 9, the computer architecture 900 includes a computer 912 comprising a processor 902, a system memory 904 and a system bus 906. The processor 902 can be any of various commercially available processors”
[0118] “The computer architecture 900 may include or implement various articles of manufacture. An article of manufacture may include a computer-readable storage medium to store logic. Examples of a computer-readable storage medium may include any tangible media capable of storing electronic data, including volatile memory or non-volatile memory, removable or non-removable memory, erasable or non-erasable memory, writeable or re-writeable memory, and so forth”.
Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, authenticate, or send data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements 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.
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, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2 and 11 recite “wherein authenticating the account holder comprises a multi-factor authentication.” The claims recite further details regarding the authentication, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 3, 12, and 18 recite “wherein the multi-factor authentication comprises sending a verification code via an email, a text message, a phone call, an instant message, and an authentication application.” The claims recite further details regarding the authentication, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the authenticated computing application is one from a group comprising a mobile application, a web-based application, a voice-based application, and a chat-based application.” The claim recites further details regarding the authenticated computing application, which is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 13 recite “wherein the unique identifier is associated with a second contactless card of the account holder.” The claims recite further details regarding the unique identifier, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 6, 14, and 19 recite “further comprising, verifying that the contactless card meets at least a threshold compatibility.” The claims recite further details regarding a verification step, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 15 recite “wherein the unique identifier is written to the contactless card using a near field communication protocol.” The claims recite further details of using a near field communication protocol to write information, which is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the unique identifier is written to a specific portion of memory of the contactless card.” The claim recites further details of writing data to a specific portion of a memory, which is merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 9, 16, and 20 recite “wherein the unique identifier that is provided to be written to the contactless card is newly created for the account holder, replacing an older unique identifier of the account holder.” The claims recite further details of replacing information, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claim, each claim recites using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 20100123003 A1) in view of Robinson et al. (US 20140237228 A1) in further view of shd013 (“Two certificates on smart card”, Information Security, 19-November-2011).
As per Claims 1, 10, and 17, Olson discloses a computer-implemented method to program a contactless card (See Figures 1 and 2 disclosing the system for the card printing verification system), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a server, a first request to associate the contactless card with an account, the first request received via an authenticated computing application (See Figure 6a – step 106, as disclosed [0061] “If the customer selects to issue a new card in decision branch 106, according to step 200, identification credentials are received from the customer”);
authenticating, by the server, that the first request was received from an account holder of the account (See Figure 6a – steps 210 and 220, as disclosed [0063] “Thereafter, according to step 210 as previously described, the transmitted data is verified for authenticity and validated against a fraud detection database 46” and [0064] “As also described above, once the customer is authenticated, the customer is validated with the compliance module 16 under step 220. Again, the compliance module 16 accesses the compliance database 48 to determine if the customer's identity matches any identity of prohibited persons”);
…
based on establishing authenticity of the account holder, determining, by the server, a unique identifier of the account holder associated with the account; and sending, by the server, a second request to the authenticated computing application to write the unique identifier of the account holder … to the contactless card (See Figure 6b – steps 222 to 228, as disclosed [0064] “If the customer is validated in decision branch 222, the card printing verification system 10, specifically the card issuance module 18 or a related external application associated with the server component 6, issues a new card number 52 and a corresponding verification code 62 according to step 226. The card issuance module 18 then transmits the newly issued data to the client component 3 of the card printing verification system 10 in step 228 for final customization and printing” wherein [0016] “The method may conclude with dispensing a transaction card linked via a unique identifier to a financial account associated with the authorized user”. Or see also [0054] “After authenticating and validating the customer, the method in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention involves a step 300 of issuing the card. More particularly, the above-described card issuance module 18 generates the PAN 52 and ties it with the new account”).
Although the prior art may not explicitly disclose of receiving the request and sending another request to the “authenticated computing application”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to associate two components for the claimed process, as Figure 1 teaches of various communications between two systems (i.e. client side and server side components), as disclosed [0032] “The security input device 13 and the card printer 22 are understood to be client side components 3, while the identity verification module 14, the compliance module 16, the card issuance module 18, and the fund management module are server components 6. In this regard, the client side components 3 are remotely located with respect to the server side components”, which may include receiving data and transmitting data, with the motivation to [0006-0015] improve security and process for the card issuance system.
Although Olson teaches of the card printing system, the prior art does not seem to explicitly disclose of assigning and writing cryptographic keys to the card. However, Robinson teaches:
assigning two cryptographic keys to the contactless card, wherein the two cryptographic keys are based on uniquely identifiable information associated with the contactless card ([0015] “In some embodiments, system 100 may be a portion of a PKI system. A PKI system may provide for the distribution and use of private/public cryptographic key pairs … In these embodiments, the smart card used to log on may contain a private/public key cryptographic key pair and a certificate attesting to the identity of the holder of the private key … Domain controller 120 may also act as a certificate authority, issuing certificates when a new private/public key cryptographic key pair is created on a smart card” or see also [0016] “The administrator may then take information from a user and cause the activation of a smart card inserted in card reader 117. The activation may include sending a command to the smart card to generate a private/public key cryptographic key pair. Card reader 117 may read the public key and transmit it to IT station 110. IT station 110 may obtain a certificate attesting to the ownership of the public key and may write it to the smart card”);
…
sending, by the server, a second request to the authenticated computing application to write the unique identifier of the account holder and the two cryptographic keys to the contactless card ([0028] “If authentication is successful, flow proceeds to block 330. A terminal with a smart card reader, such as IT station 110 of FIG. 1, populates a user certificate onto a smart card; that is, writes the user certificate onto the card. The certificate may attest that the card holder is the holder of a private/public cryptographic key pair through the card holder's possession of the smart card. The private/public cryptographic key pair may have been generated on the smart card in response to a command to the smart card from the terminal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize assigning and writing cryptographic keys to the card as in Robinson in the system executing the method of Olson with the motivation of offering to [0002] improve security of data while increasing the speed and efficiency of processing information from the card as taught by Robinson over that of Olson.
Although Robinson teaches of assigning and writing cryptographic keys (e.g. public/private key pair) to the smart card, along with a certificate, the prior art does not seem to explicitly state the “two” cryptographic keys as claimed. However, shd013 teaches:
assigning two cryptographic keys to the contactless card, wherein the two cryptographic keys are based on uniquely identifiable information associated with the contactless card ([Page 1] “In Sweden you can have a "citizen electronic ID" on smart card (issuer Telia). The smart card have two certificates with different keys and different key-usages. One certificate is for "authentication/encryption" and one is for "digital signing" (key-usage=non-repudiation). As I understand it isn't possible to export the private key for any of the certificates” and [Page 2] “Modern smart cards have room for many private keys … so there is little harm done in having two keypairs and two certificates, even if it was not strictly necessary”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize two cryptographic keys on the card as in shd013 in the system executing the method of Robinson with the motivation of offering to [Page 2] improve security by storing distinct keys as taught by shd013 over that of Robinson.
As per claims 2 and 11, Olson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and the computing device of claim 10, wherein authenticating the account holder comprises a multi-factor authentication (See Figure 6a – steps 201 to 205 including multiple authentications, such as validating the ID, scanning thumbprint, and validating the customer’s signature).
As per claims 5 and 13, Olson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and the computing device of claim 10, wherein the unique identifier is associated with a second contactless card of the account holder (See Figure 6c which teaches of reissuing a new card, as disclosed [0026] “FIG. 6c is a flowchart detailing a first group of steps for reissuing a new card to an existing user that utilizes the method for verifying instant card issuance according to one embodiment of the present invention”).
As per claim 8, Olson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the unique identifier is written to a specific portion of memory of the contactless card ([0056] “It is also possible to utilize "smart cards," i.e., cards with integrated circuit memory and processing devices embedded within the body of the card 12”).
Claims 3-4, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson, in view of Robinson in further view of shd013, and in view of Wilson et al. (US 9799071 B1).
As per claims 3, 12, and 18, Olson may not explicitly disclose, but Wilson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, the computing device of claim 11, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the multi-factor authentication comprises sending a verification code via an email, a text message, a phone call, an instant message, and an authentication application ([Col 8 Lines 15-24] “The account verification module 415 can verify customer accounts created on behalf of customers by various methods described with reference to FIGS. 3B and 3D. In other words, the account verification module 415 can be configured to send a verification request via an email 422, a text message 424, an automated phone call 430 or any other suitable communication channel to request a customer to verify his or her account by providing the card verification value or other information corresponding to a payment card used in a swiping transaction by the customer” or see also [Col 9 Lines 50-57] “Performing the requested verification action can include clicking on a link in an email and providing the card verification value associated with the payment card on a webpage or on a user interface of an application, responding to a text message with the card verification value or providing the card verification value during the automatic phone call, for example”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention o utilize the various multi-factor authentication as in Wilson in the system executing the method of Olson with the motivation of offering to provide [Col 6 Lines 36-50] “added security” in account verification as taught by Wilson over that of Olson.
As per claim 4, Olson may not explicitly disclose, but Wilson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the authenticated computing application is one from a group comprising a mobile application, a web-based application, a voice-based application, and a chat-based application ([Col 2 Lines 58-62] “The verification request can include a link that the customer can select to launch an application installed on the mobile device or a webpage on a browser and prompt the customer to enter the card verification value for the payment card”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the application for card verification as in Wilson in the system executing the method of Olson with the motivation of offering to provide [Col 6 Lines 36-50] “added security” in account verification as taught by Wilson over that of Olson.
Claims 6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson, in view of Robinson in further view of shd013, and in view of Ding et al. (US 20200372490 A1).
As per claims 6, 14, and 19, Olson may not explicitly disclose, but Ding teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computing device of claim 10, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, further comprising, verifying that the contactless card meets at least a threshold compatibility ([0012] “determining, by the terminal, the to-be-verified bank card and the at least one to-be-bound bank card from the at least two bank cards according to a preset rule. For example, the preset rule includes: determining that a bank card whose quantity of historical usage times is greater than a preset threshold is the to-be-verified bank card”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the preset rule comprising threshold verification for the card as in Ding in the system executing the method of Olson with the motivation of offering to [0113] “simplify user operation to improve card binding efficiency” as taught by Ding over that of Olson.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson, in view of Robinson in further view of shd013, and in view of Spinella (US 20140365366 A1).
As per claims 7 and 15, Olson may not explicitly disclose, but Spinella teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and the computing device of claim 10, wherein the unique identifier is written to the contactless card using a near field communication protocol ([0047] “The transaction card 220 in accordance with this invention may be used to pay for acquisitions, obtain access, provide identification, pay an amount, receive payment, redeem reward points, and/or the like. In the RF embodiments, instrument to instrument transactions may also be performed. See, for example, Sony's "Near Field Communication" ("NFC") emerging standard which is touted as operating on 13.56 MHz and allowing the transfer of any kind of data between NFC enabled devices and across a distance of up to twenty centimeters”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize NFC technology to transfer data (e.g. write unique identifier to the card) as in Spinella in the system executing the method of Olson with the motivation of offering to [0002-0007] “provide increased data security, improved efficiency, reduced operating costs, and enhanced customer experience” as taught by Spinella over that of Olson.
Claims 9, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson, in view of Robinson in further view of shd013, and in view of Evans et al. (US 7453999 B1).
As per claims 9, 16, and 20, Olson may not explicitly disclose, but Evans teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computing device of claim 10, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the unique identifier that is provided to be written to the contactless card is newly created for the account holder, replacing an older unique identifier of the account holder ([Col 2 Lines 43-48] “In accordance with one embodiment of the principles of the present invention, the user may elect (e.g., during activation of the prepaid services card) to initiate a replacement service that will replace the initial prepaid services account identifier with a separate identifier upon request by the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize replacement service to replace the account identifier with a new identifier for the card as in Evans in the system executing the method of Olson with the motivation of offering to improve security and efficiency for the prepaid card activation process as taught by Evans over that of Olson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6 to 11, filed 23-October-2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they provide a technical solution to address a technical problem of manufacturing contactless cards associated with an existing customer account. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the additional elements are generic computer components merely applied to perform its generic functionalities to implement the abstract idea (e.g. create a transaction card by communicating data), and the “two cryptographic keys” are mere data or information being written on the card for security. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, authenticate, or send data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Additionally, in view of the Specification, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11 to 13, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rivera (US 20180063711 A1) discloses [0012] “For example, during registration, the establishment's device may send a request to the smart card/TPM chip for the smart card/TPM chip to create a cryptographic key pair to be associated with the establishment, and then one of the keys from the pair being transmitted back to the establishment's device for that device to store it in a secure location accessible to the establishment's device”;
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 HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights