DETAILED ACTION
This is office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 04/13/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been filed by the applicant.
Claims 1-6 and 18-20 have been withdrawn.
Claims 8, 11, 15 and 17 were previously canceled.
Claims 12-13 are presently canceled.
Claim 7 is currently amended.
Claims 7, 9-10, 14 and 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Argument
Rejection under 103:
The applicant argues that the office action does not provide a sufficient rationale for combining Kingston to “avoid unwanted outcomes”, because Im already contemplates a solution for user to “avoid unwanted outcomes” by displaying in cardholder’s language and requiring a PIN. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kingston discloses that during a transaction when the POS notice a situation of “requires customer consent”, Kingston prompt customer to re-swipe the card as consent [0060]. Therefore, Kingston discloses a way to re-confirm/double check with the customer during transaction, instead of approve/decline directly. The extra step obviously “avoids unwanted outcomes” by having the customer to understand the situation and process further with acknowledge of the situation. When combine Kingston, it would have been obvious to avoid unwanted outcomes when there could be communication complication because of language different as recited in the claims.
The applicant further argues that the office action does not provide a sufficient rationale for combining Gotlieb because it would be difficult to construct a more conclusory rationale to combine with Gotlieb to “provide better assistance for the customer”, and because Gotlieb does not disclose “provide better assistance for the customer”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Gotlieb discloses using a speaker to prompt the customer during a transaction. It would have been understood for everyone that playing audio guidance in addition to displaying instruction (as disclosed by Im) would provide better assistance to the customer.
The applicant further argues that Gotlieb is not analogous art because Gotlieb is classified in distinct CPC classification from the present application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Gotlieb and the present application both are classified in the same CPC classification G06Q 20/20. In addition, the present application is classified in G06Q20/341, while Gotlieb is classified in G06Q 20/34.
The applicant further argues that Gotlieb is limited to adding a further step to a transaction but the present application is directed to increasing transaction security. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Gotlieb and the present application are directed to a transaction on POS device. Therefore, they are in the same field of endeavor. Even if Gotlieb is directed to a different purpose, it does not exclude Gotlieb from an analogous art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7, 9-10, 14 and 16 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. Claim 7 recites “a data element comprising account data, native language data corresponding to a native language of a user of the payment card, and trigger data”. Claim 7 seems to recite native language data and trigger data as separate two data. However, in light of specification [0006, 0010, 0014], the trigger data includes the native language data or the trigger data is the native language data. There is not disclosure support the claim that these two being separate data. For the purpose of examination, the examiner treat the native language data and the trigger data the same data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im (US 20070017971 A1), and further in view of Kingston (US 20120066126 A1) and Gotlieb (US 20190385400 A1).
With respect to claim 7:
Im teaches (in italic):
A system comprising: a payment device comprising: a payment card comprising a first surface, a second surface, and a data element comprising account data, native language data corresponding to a native language of a user of the payment card, and trigger data, the data element arranged on or in the payment card. (The terminal 100 will be a normal credit card terminal used at the average retail business. The features of the terminal includes a card read 102 that is configured to read a portable memory medium that would include any form of credit card, debit card, ATM card or the like that has a magnetic strip that stores information pertinent to the owner of the card 104. The card reader 102 may accept the card 104 in any physical manner, for example, internally or via swiping, or may be configured to read an integrated chip (IC) or radio frequency (RFID) memory without physically having to accept the card 104. The method also includes reading the customer language from a portable memory medium of a customer and identifying the customer language. [0010 0023, Fig 1:104])
a point-of-sale (POS) device comprising: […] a communication interface; and a processor programmed or configured to. (a credit card and debit card transaction terminal that includes a processor, a display, and a memory. The terminal also includes a card reader configured to read data stored on a memory means of a portable memory medium. [0009, Fig 1:100])
automatically implement a modified transaction authorization protocol different from a primary authorization protocol in response to receiving a first communication comprising the trigger data. (The terminal 100 is configured to read the card 104 and determine if a particular language has been stored on the card's memory as shown in block 220. If there is an associated language for the card 104, then the language identification module 122 and the customer language identification module 126 will run to identify, determine and select the appropriate customer language, as shown in block 230 ("Yes" branch 235 to block 250), that may displayed on the customer interface or receipt 114. [0030-0031])
automatically, in response to receipt of the trigger data and based at least in part on the native language data, causing[…] to output. (The terminal 100 is configured to read the card 104 and determine if a particular language has been stored on the card's memory as shown in block 220. If there is an associated language for the card 104, then the language identification module 122 and the customer language identification module 126 will run to identify, determine and select the appropriate customer language, as shown in block 230 ("Yes" branch 235 to block 250), that may displayed on the customer interface or receipt 114. The language identification module 122 may include a text representation of the name of the language, or it may be in code form that is reconciled by the processor 110 or computing device in the terminal 100 for the interface language to be displayed. Any representation that may be used to automatically identify and display an appropriate interface language may displayed on the user interface display 106 or displayed on the receipt 112. [0027 0030-0031])
following receipt of the account data, complete the transaction. (For example, the user interface display 106 may display in the customer language the necessary words that notify the customer to understand, confirm, approve or any other criteria that would aid in completing the transaction via the keyboard 108. The user interface display 106 displays all normal information to a customer that would complete a debit card transaction including PIN number...Block 370 demonstrates that a business transaction has occurred and a receipt 114 may print from a printer 112, as shown in block 380. [0034])
wherein the processor is programmed or configured to not complete the transaction without receipt of the account data from the payment device. (to conduct a debit card transaction or some credit card transaction, a customer may need to input a personal identification number ("PIN") on the keyboard 108 to verify and confirm the transaction for business transaction to be completed. [0034])
Im does not explicitly teach the following limitations. However,
Kingston teaches:
the modified authorization protocol configured to request further input from the payment device to complete the transaction, the modified transaction authorization protocol comprising. (For example, in some embodiments where the transaction machine is a POS device, the apparatus having the process flow 100 is configured to prompt the holder to consent to the overage by re-swiping a debit or credit card through the POS device. If the holder then re-swipes the debit or credit card through the POS device, then the apparatus determines that the holder has consented to the overage. [0060])
following output of the authentication query, receive, from the data element, a second communication comprising the account data from the payment device. (As another example, in some embodiments, the holder consents to the overage by presenting (or re-presenting) account information to the transaction machine after being prompted to consent to the overage. In such embodiments, the holder presenting or re-presenting the account information serves to indicate the holder's consent to the overage. For example, in some embodiments where the transaction machine is a POS device, the apparatus having the process flow 100 is configured to prompt the holder to consent to the overage by re-swiping a debit or credit card through the POS device. If the holder then re-swipes the debit or credit card through the POS device, then the apparatus determines that the holder has consented to the overage. [0060])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Im to prompt a second communication with the technique as disclosed by Kingston to avoid or reduce unexpected or unwanted outcomes as Kingston suggested [0002].
Im in view of Kingston does not explicitly teach the following limitations. However,
Gotlieb teaches:
a speaker; […] causing the speaker to output an authentication query […] comprising at least one of the following: a location of the transaction, a number of items purchased, a total amount of the transaction, or any combination thereof. (In an embodiment, the consumer may be prompted by a POS device 465 (e.g., a pin pad, a register display, or a speaker) if the consumer 279 would like to pay $X (e.g., pay the wager amount 225) to play the Play My Bill Lottery Game 299 for a chance to win free groceries 485 or cash value prize 490. [0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Im in view of Kingston to use speaker to output audio instruction with the technique as disclosed by Gotlieb to better assist customers.
With respect to claim 10:
Im further teaches further comprising an integrated circuit chip arranged on or in the payment card. (The card reader 102 may accept the card 104 in any physical manner, for example, internally or via swiping, or may be configured to read an integrated chip (IC) or radio frequency (RFID) memory without physically having to accept the card 104. [0023])
With respect to claim 14:
Im further teaches wherein, in the absence of the trigger data, the POS device does not implement the modified authorization protocol. (If there is an associated language for the card 104, then the language identification module 122 and the customer language identification module 126 will run to identify, determine and select the appropriate customer language, as shown in block 230 ("Yes" branch 235 to block 250), that may displayed on the customer interface or receipt 114. [0031])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Im", “Kingston” and "Gotlieb" as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hachey et al. (US 20090200385 A1).
With respect to claim 9:
Im in view of Kingston and Gotlieb does not teach further comprising a plurality of raised indicia arranged on the first surface and/or the second surface of the payment card, the plurality of raised indicia comprising braille. However,
Hachey teaches further comprising a plurality of raised indicia arranged on the first surface and/or the second surface of the payment card, the plurality of raised indicia comprising braille. (A first set of raised indicia 106 located in a region at the bottom of the card. The second set of raised indicia 206 is read from left to right on the second major surface 200. [0024-0027])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Im in view of Kingston and Gotlieb to use braille on the card with the technique as disclosed by Hachey to better assist visually impaired consumers as Hachey suggested [0013].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Im" “Kingston” and "Gotlieb" as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Woods et al. (US 20180181955 A1).
With respect to claim 16:
Im in view of Kingston and Gotlieb does not teach wherein the account data comprises a token. However,
Woods teaches wherein the account data comprises a token. (a secure token for the transaction and transmits it to the merchant computing device (e.g., POS device), wherein the secure token is unique to the cardholder and includes an account identifier, a vehicle identifier, and a biometric identifier [0031])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Im in view of Kingston and Gotlieb to tokenize data with the technique as disclosed by Woods to securely handling account data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070138267 A1: A method, system and computer-program for providing translated answers to foreign language speakers is presented. The method includes the steps of receiving, at a public terminal, a verbal input from a customer speaking a foreign language, the foreign language being unintelligible to an operator of the public terminal; translating, by the public terminal, the verbal input into a language that has been predetermined as being understandable by a specific operator of the public terminal; and presenting the translated verbal input to the specific operator.
US 9266356 B2: A speech output device, a control method for a speech output device, a printer, and an interface board can improve the productivity of foreign language speaking workers in industries such as retailing and food services. A data communication unit 191 acquires print data. A data interpreter 193 analyzes and converts to text data at least part of the data acquired by the data communication unit 191. A language converter 194 converts the text data to one or more preset languages. A speech synthesizer 195 generates one or more units of synthesized speech data corresponding to the language-converted text data from the language converter 194. A speech data output unit 196 outputs the one or more units of synthesized speech data generated by the speech synthesizer 195 to a headphone 104.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZESHENG XIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am-4:30pm M-F.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. 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.
/Z.X./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights