Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Claims
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Intended Use
3. Claim 1, “A system… comprising: first and second computer systems… an electronic device used in acquiring a verification metric for a transaction…” and claim 15, “A method… with an electronic device used in processing a PIN-related transaction…” Claims 1 and 15, “[transmit]… to securely process the transaction”
The language represents the intended use an “electronic device” and of transmitting payment instrument information, respectively. According to the MPEP, such language will not differentiate a claim from the prior art (MPEP 2103 I C).
Not positively recited
4. Claim 4, “wherein the payment instruction information is encrypted using a public/private key (PPK) encryption technique implemented in hardware of the electronic device”
The “system” of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, comprises a “first computer system”, a “second computer system”, and not an “electronic device”. Therefore, as encryption takes place at the “electronic device”, it occurs outside of the system and, as a result, does not further limit its scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. Claim 15 recites:
receiving payment instrument information… for the transaction;
[sending] to the… the payment instrument information, the identifier of… and the transaction identifier;
…
generating and [send] to the … a scrambling key,
receiving a scrambled verification metric code from the…, the scrambled verification metric code being scrambled using the generated scrambling key,
descrambling and encrypt the received scrambled verification metric code, and
[sending] to… the payment instrument information received from the… and the descrambled and encrypted verification metric code to securely process the transaction.
Therefore, the claim recites “securing a transaction utilizing cryptography”, which is a commercial or legal interaction (i.e. organizing human activity) and an abstract idea.
The additional elements of “first computer system”, “second computer system”, “each of the first and second computer systems including at least one respective computer processor and being configured to electronically communicate with an electronic device used in processing a PIN-related transaction”, “device”, “transmitting” and “one or more third computers” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement securing a transaction utilizing cryptography and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field. Hence, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
8. Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of “securing a transaction utilizing cryptography” as well as the additional elements of “first computer system”, “second computer system”, “electronic device”, “device”, “transmit” and “one or more third computers”. Therefore, the additional elements represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement securing a transaction utilizing cryptography and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as they do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
Hence, claim 1 is also not patent eligible.
9. Claim 2 recites “wherein the first and second computer systems are separate from one another”. The additional element represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
10. Claim 3 recites “at least one firewall physically separating the first and second computer systems”. Claim 16 recites similar language. The additional elements of claims 3 and 16 represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
11. Claim 4 recites “wherein payment instrument information is encrypted using a public/private key (PPK) encryption technique…” which further describes the abstract idea. The additional element of “implemented in hardware of the electronic device” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
12. Claim 5 recites “wherein the encrypted payment instrument information is received…” which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 17 recites similar language. The additional elements of “at the first computer system from the electronic device over the Internet” (or in the case of claim 17 “at the first computer system… from the electronic device over the internet”) represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
13. Claim 6 recites “wherein … determine that a payment instrument associated with the payment instrument information is a debit instrument for which a PIN code is required” which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 18 recites similar language.
The additional element of “the first computer system is further configured” (or in the case of claim 18 “at the first computer system”) represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
14. Claim 7 recites “wherein … send a message from … the message comprising a confirmation of acceptance of payment”, which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the second computer system is further configured” and “the one or more third computers to the electronic device using the second computer system” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, with respect to “using the second computer system”, the claim lacks technological details regarding how “using the second computer system” is performed and, as a result, is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
15. Claim 8 recites “wherein … send a message from …”, which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the second computer system is further configured” and “the one or more third computers to the electronic device by way of the first computer system” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, with respect to “by way of the first computer system”, the claim lacks technological details regarding how “by way of the first computer system” is performed and, as a result, is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
16. Claim 9 recites “… mask at least some of the payment instrument information”, which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the first computer system is further configured” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
17. Claim 10 recites “… mask at least some of the payment instrument information by deleting at least some of payment instrument information prior to [sending]… ”, which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the first computer system is further configured” and “transmission to the second computer system” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
18. Claim 11 recites “wherein the electronic device is a payment terminal”. The additional element represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
19. Claim 12 recites “wherein the electronic device is a mobile phone”. The additional element represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
20. Claim 13 recites “wherein unencrypted payment instrument information and unencrypted verification metric information is not stored together…”, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 20 recites similar language.
The additional element of “on any of the first computer system, second computer system, or electronic device” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
21. Claim 14 recites “wherein secure processing of the transaction… does not change an interchange rate”, which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional element of “via the first and second computer systems” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
22. Claim 19 recites “further comprising relaying… a message… to…, the message confirming acceptance of payment”, which further describes the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the second computer system” and “the electronic fund transfer network to the electronic device using the second computer system” represents the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, with respect to “using the second computer system”, the claim lacks technological details regarding how “using the second computer system” is performed and, as a result, is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
23. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
24. Claims 3, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
25. Claim 3, “… further comprising at least one firewall physically separating the first and second computer systems.” To one of ordinary skill, a “firewall” is a device that monitors and filters data on a communication network and does not physically separate computers. According to Applicant’s Specification, “[the] various systems may be physically separated from one another (e.g., “For instance, the first and second systems 106 and 110 may be located at different companies behind different firewalls, at the same company behind separate firewalls, etc.”) (para 32). However, this merely discloses that systems may be physically separated but not how a firewall creates the physical separation. Therefore, Applicant has not provided the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform physically separating the first and second computer systems by a firewall with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how Applicant intended the function to be performed (MPEP 2161.01 I).
Claim 16 is also rejected as it recites similar language. For purposes of examination, claims 3 and 16 will be interpreted as follows: the system further comprising a firewall between the first and second computer systems.
26. Claim 14, “wherein secure processing of the transaction via the first and second computer systems does not change an interchange rate”.
According to Applicant’s Specification (para 29),
Although one might in some case expect providing limited card data in the manner disclosed herein to drive up the interchange rate, this is not necessarily the case. Indeed, one might expect the exemplary techniques disclosed herein to be similar to a “card-not-present” transaction that incurs substantially higher interchange rates when credit cards are used. The inventor has realized, however, that the Durbin Bill mandates a fixed price interchange rate for debit cards that does not differentiate between “pin vs. no pin (signature)” events, let alone if all the card data was provided. Thus, certain exemplary embodiments at least a present will not necessarily have a higher interchange rate, even though incomplete data is provided. It is noted, however, that different rates may be provided in the future, given evolving understandings and implementations of the Durbin Bill, etc.
However, the above is not sufficient to support the claimed breadth that encompasses “secure processing”, in general. More specifically, Applicant has not described what “secure processing” comprises and what specific aspect of said “secure processing”, such that, when executed by the claimed first or second computer system an interchange rate does not change. Therefore, the Specification lacks the steps/procedure taken to perform “secure processing of the transaction via the first and second computer systems” that “does not change an interchange rate” with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how Applicant intended the function to be performed (MPEP 2161.01 I; MPEP 2163 II, 3, (a), ii).
Claim 20 is also rejected as it recites similar language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
27. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
28. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
More than one interpretation
29. Claim 1 recites:
“generate and transmit to the electronic device a scrambling key” and “receive a scrambled verification metric code from the electronic device, the scrambled verification metric code being scrambled using the generated scrambling key”
However, the claim is silent what type of key is used to descramble the “scrambled verification metric code”. The claim does not identify what type of key the “scrambling key” is. For example, if the “scrambling key” is part of a key pair, then descrambling is done by a separate and distinct descrambling key. On the other hand, if the “scrambling key” is a secret key, then the “scrambling key” would also be used to descramble the “verification metric code”. Additionally, the Specification does not provide a definition for the “scrambling key”, such as by identifying the type of scrambling algorithm used. As a result, the scope of the claim is unclear (“If the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate”, MPEP 2173.02 I).
Claim 15 is also rejected as it recites similar language.
30. Claim 4, “wherein payment instrument information is encrypted…”. Claims 13 and 20, “wherein unencrypted payment instrument information…”
Claim 1, however, from which claims 4 and 13 depend, recites: “wherein the first computer system is configured to at least: receive payment instrument information…” and “transmit… the payment instrument information…” … “wherein the second computer system is configured to at least: … transmit to one or more third computer the payment instrument information …”. Claim 4 does not identify which system of claim 1 performed the encryption, or whether the “payment instrument information” is received by the “first computer system” already encrypted. Additionally, “payment instrument information” of claim 4 is not preceded by an article (e.g. “the”). Hence, it is not clear to one of ordinary skill which “payment instrument information” of claim 1, claim 4 is attempting to further describe (MPEP 2173.02 I). Similarly, claim 13 recites “unencrypted payment instrument information …”. In other words, as claim 1, merely discloses “payment instrument information” it is not clear whether it is in encrypted, unencrypted or at different times encrypted and unencrypted while within the first and second computer systems (MPEP 2173.02 I). Claim 20 also it is similar to claim 13 and claim 15 recites language similar to claim 1.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
31. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the encrypted payment instrument information" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17, also.
32. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the electronic funds transfer network" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent Claims
33. Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are also rejected as each depends from either claim 1 or 15, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
34. 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.
35. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Mueller et al., US 20080091944 in view of Tang et al., US 20040010711.
36. As per claims 1 and 15, Von Mueller et al. teach a system comprising:
first (fig. 6, item 114; para 109) and second computer (fig. 6, item 120) systems, each of the first and second computer systems being configured to electronically communicate with an electronic device (fig. 6, item 113) used in acquiring a verification metric for a transaction (fig. 15, item 184; paras 109, 241 and 244) the transaction having an associated transaction identifier (paras 129 and 130) and the electronic device having an associated device identifier (paras 148 and 236);
wherein the first computer system is configured (figs. 2 and 17, item 114) to at
least:
receive payment instrument information (paras 65-84, 138 and 139) from the electronic device (figs. 2 and 17, item 113) for the transaction (fig. 17, items 111, 114 and 135; paras 97, 108, 110 and 138);
transmit to the second computer system (figs. 2 and 17, item 120) the payment instrument information, the identifier of the electronic device and the transaction identifier (figs. 2 and 17, items 114, 120 and 137; paras 105, 117, 118, 130 and 137-139);
wherein the second computer system (figs. 2 and 17, item 120) is configured to
at least:
…
receive scrambled verification metric code from the electronic device, the scrambled verification metric code being scrambled using the generated scrambled key (fig. 2 items 113 and 132; fig. 17, items 113, 132, 140 and 141; para 242);
descramble and encrypt the received scrambled verification metric code (paras 247 and 248 and 250) and
transmit to one or more third computers (figs. 2 and 17, items 122A, 123) the payment instrument information received from the first computer and the descrambled and encrypted verification metric code to securely process the transaction (paras 118, 128, 158, 247, 248 and 250).
Von Mueller et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein the second computer system is configured to at least: generate and transmit to the electronic device a scrambling key”. However, this is taught by Tang et al. (fig. 1, items 110 and 137; paras 40-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Von Mueller et al. and Tang et al. in order to enable keys to be downloaded as opposed to generated by the “electronic device” (i.e. data capture device) of Von Mueller et al. (‘944, para 187) as well increase security by periodically updating “electronic device” keys (‘944, fig. 7; paras 32 and 186; ‘711, para 42).
37. As per claim 2, Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein the first and second computer systems are separate from one another (fig. 2, items 114 and 120).
38. As per claim 4, Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein payment instrument information is encrypted using … encryption technique implemented in hardware of the electronic device (fig. 7; paras 32, 103, 104, 108 and 252). Von Mueller et al., do not explicitly disclose, where the encryption and decryption keys are different keys (e.g. public/private, asymmetric keys) (paras 100, 101 and 224; claim 4).Tang et al. teach encrypting data according to a public/private key encryption technique (paras 7, 8 and 40-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Von Mueller et al. and Tang et al. as it represents no more than substituting one encryption technique (‘944, fig. 7; paras 32, 99 and 186) for another (‘711, paras 7 and 8) (MPEP 2144.06 II).
39. As per claims 6 and 18, Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein the first computer system is further configured to determine that a payment instrument associated with the payment instrument information is a debit instrument for a which a PIN code is required (paras 89, 241 and 258).
40. As per claim 7, Von Mueller et al. do not explicitly disclose: wherein the second computer is further configured to send a message from the one or more third computer to the electronic device using the second computer system, the message comprising a confirmation of acceptance of payment. However, this is taught by Tang et al. as they teach a second computer (“third party system”) conveying a transaction authorization from a third computer (“host”) to an electronic device (“CAT”) (fig. 1, items 110, 130 and 135; para 49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Von Mueller et al. and Tang et al. in order to indicate to a customer that a transaction was confirmed (‘711, para 49).
41. As per claim 9, Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein the first computer system is further configured to mask at least some of the payment instrument information (paras 119 and 152).42. As per claim 10, Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein the first computer system is further configured to mask at least some of the payment instrument information by deleting at least some payment instrument information prior to its transmission to the second computer system (paras 113, 119, 134, 152, 273 and 283-286).
43. As per claim 11, Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein the electronic device is a payment terminal (fig. 2, 113; fig 35; paras 109, 504 and 505).
44. As per claim 12, Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein the electronic device is a mobile phone (fig. 2, 113; fig 35; paras 109, 504 and 505).
45. As per claim 13, Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein unencrypted payment instrument information and unencrypted verification metric information is not stored together on any of the first computer system, second computer system, or electronic device (fig. 17, items 132 and 145; paras 100, 119, and 129).
46. As per claims 14 and 20, Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein secure processing of the transaction via the first and second computer systems does not change an interchange rate (figs. 2 and 17).
47. Claims 3, 5, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Mueller et al., US 20080091944 in view of Tang et al., US 20040010711 and “An overview of firewall technologies”, Abie, Telektronikk, Vol. 96, January 2000.
48. As per claims 3 and 16, the combination of Von Mueller et al. and Tang et al. teach first and second computer systems that are separate from one another (fig. 2, items 114 and 120). However, neither discloses firewalls. Abie teaches placing a firewall between two computer systems (page 1, section 1 “Introduction”, second full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Von Mueller et al., Tang et al. and Abie in order to prevent unauthorized access to the terminal (“first”) and gateway (“second”) computer systems (‘944, fig. 2, items 137 and 139; paras 100, 109 and 499) via the communications network connecting the terminal and gateway ((‘944, fig. 2, items 137 and 139; Abie, page 2, section 1, first full paragraph).
49. As per claims 5 and 17, the combination of Von Mueller et al. teach: wherein the encrypted payment instrument information is received at the first computer system from the electronic device over a network (‘944, fig. 2, items 113, 114 and 135; ‘711, fig. 1, items 105, 106 and 120). However, the combination does not explicitly identify the “network” as the internet. Abie discloses using the internet as a means of communicating data from one computer system to another (section 1; section 1, figure 1; section 2; sub-section 3.4).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Von Mueller et al., Tang et al. and Abie as it represents no more than a substitution of one network for another that is more secure (i.e. firewall protected) (MPEP 2144.06 II).
50. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Mueller et al., US 20080091944 in view of Tang et al., US 20040010711 and in further view of Rothwell et al., US 20080257958.
51. As per claims 8 and 19, Von Mueller et al. teach routing or relaying a transaction confirmation by a second computer system (“gateway”) from one or more third or electronic fund transfer network computers (“transaction processing network”) to a first computer system (“terminal”) (fig. 2, items 114, 120, 123 and 139; paras 137 and 251), but not to the electronic device. Tang et al. teach providing a confirmation from a second computer system to an electronic device (para 49). The combination, however, fails to teach a first computer system conveying an authorization to an electronic device. Rothwell et al. teach a first computer system (“EPOS terminal”) (fig. 2, item 215; para 40) receiving an authorization and conveying the authorization to an electronic device (“chip and PIN card reader”) (fig. 2, item 220; para 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Von Mueller et al., Tang et al. and Rothwell et al. in order to indicate to a customer that a transaction was confirmed (‘711, para 49; ‘958, para 60).
Conclusion
52. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20040260950, Ougi et al., teach scrambling data with a scramble key (Ks) and descrambling the scrambled data with a separate descramble key (Kd) (fig. 6; para 199).
US 20110231319, Bayoud et al., teach a mobile phone sending its phone number to a server, the server generating a session key and associating the session key with the phone number, the server transmitting the session key to the phone, and using the phone number to retrieve the session key when decrypting encrypted information received from the phone.
U.S. Patent No. 6,847,953, Kuo, teach e-commerce transactions where a user computer forwards a request to a host via a merchant, the merchant sends its own version of the request to the host, where each request has an order ID, and the host authenticating a transaction associated with the requests by matching the order IDs
US 20090265552, Moshir et al., teach a system communicating a transaction request from a first user to one or more second users for authorization, where the system evaluates an authorization; system encrypts then re-encrypts messages.
US 20120197807, Schlesser et al., teach a system generating and sending a public key to a merchant GUI, user enters account data which is encrypted using the public key before being transmitted to the system, which in turn communicates with a credit card network.
53. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN L HEWITT II whose telephone number is (571) 272-6709. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a-7p.
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.
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.
/CALVIN L HEWITT II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692