DETAILED ACTION
This is office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 09/10/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been filed by the applicant.
Claims 1-6 and 18-20 have been withdrawn.
Claims 8, 11-13, 15 and 17 were previously 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Rejection under 112:
Previous 112 rejection are withdrawn based on amendment.
Rejection under 103:
The applicant argues that Im does not teach “a modified authorization protocol” because Im authorizes the transaction in the same manner regardless of whether the language data is presented. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Figure 2 of Im, there are clearly two protocols: 1) steps 236-245, when no language data detected (i.e., primary protocol) and 2) steps 220-250, when language data detected (i.e., modified protocol). Im discloses different sets of steps for processing transactions, which would fit on the plain meaning of a primary and a modified protocol. Im does not need to disclose the exact same steps as in the claims in order to teach a modified protocol.
The applicant further argues that Im does not teach “a modified authorization protocol” because Im does not “transmit an authentication query”. As stated above, Im does not need to disclose the exact same steps as in the claims in order to teach a modified protocol. Kingston teaches an authenticate query.
The applicant further argues that there is no reason one of ordinary skill would modify Im to include such different authorization protocol. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Im has already disclosed different authorization protocols, Im just does not have the same “modified protocol” as in the claims. It would have been obvious to modify Im’s modified protocol with Kingston’s modified protocol.
The applicant further argues that Gotlieb does not discloses audibly outputting “location, number of items and total amount of transaction”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Gotlieb at least discloses audibly outputting query comprises total amount of transaction. Furthermore, the content of query is non-functional language and does not affect the process. In addition, Im discloses the terminal displaying information to the merchant that would be pertinent to the business establishment including time, date, sales price. Im also discloses the user interface display 106 will display the pertinent information to the customer in the customer language [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Im and Gotlieb to audibly outputting any pertinent information during transaction such as the information recited in the claims.
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 and trigger data comprising native language data corresponding to a native language of a user of the payment card, 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] Fig. 2)
automatically, in response to receipt of the trigger data and based at least in part on the native language data, causing […] to output […] in the native language of the user of the payment card and comprising at least: a location of the transaction, a number of items purchased, and a total amount of the transaction. (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. a user interface display 106 that will display or show information to the merchant that would be pertinent to the business establishment including time, date, sales price. the user interface display 106 will display the pertinent information to the customer in the customer language. [0024 0027 0030-0031])
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])
wherein the primary authorization protocol does not comprise the authentication query. (Fig. 2)
Im does not explicitly teach the following limitations. However,
Kingston teaches:
the modified authorization protocol configured to cause the POS device to request a second communication from the payment device in order 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])
automatically, in response to receipt of the trigger data […], causing […] to output an authentication query. (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, the second communication, wherein the second communication comprises the account data. (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])
following receipt of the account data, complete the transaction. (the holder knows to re-swipe the debit or credit card to consent to the overage and/or complete the transaction. [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. (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.
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