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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 15, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on January 15, 2026. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. The claim status identifiers, i.e., currently amended, previously presented, original, do not accurately reflect the status of each claim in the claims presented on January 15, 2026, as the claims presented in the After Final Request dated December 08, 2025, were not entered. As the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) claims have been entered, which are identical to the not entered claims of the After Final Request dated December 08, 2025, Examiner is using the claim status identifiers of the After Final Request dated December 08, 2025, to accurately reflect the claim status in the claims presented on January 15, 2026.
Thus, Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, and 13-14 are amended. No new claims have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1, 10, and 13 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 10, and 13. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 1, …, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform to perform the steps of: …” should read “The system of claim 1, …, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform to perform the step of: …”. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 8, 17, and 19.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection, and asserts that the claims are patent-eligible. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the claims are not directed an abstract idea because claim 1 recites a variety of non-human activities; the Examiner’s characterization of the claims is incorrect; the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application; the claims invention overcomes the failure of conventional technology to provide a streamlined manner for users to initiate transactions using an electronic card as a trusted electronic identification verification mechanism; a dynamic electronic identification card associated with an electronic card provides a secure and verifiable way for a merchant to interact with a consumer via a mobile device; the present application’s invention clearly improves upon a conventional functioning technological process; claim 1 reflects the specification’s disclosed improvement in technology; claim 1 recites the components of the system which interact to provide a streamlined and secure system, and as such, these components integrate the system into a practical application; the present application’s improvement in technology beyond computer functionality demonstrates patent eligibility; similarly to McRO, in the present application, the specification states that the existing technological processes were unable to provide a single device that integrated a verification card and an electronic card, and the claims describe a specific way to solve this problem; claim 1, for at least these reasons, integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application; and claims 10 and 13 recite similar features and thus integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20250156838 A1, para 2), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘838 A1, para 2), discloses that the invention relates to validating identification of a user associated with a card, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 10 provides additional evidence, and recites the method limitations “receiving, by an account management server of a dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a mobile device, a request to associate a dynamic electronic identification of a user with an electronic card of the user; validating, by the account management server and based at least in part on receiving the request to associate the dynamic electronic identification with the electronic card, the dynamic electronic identification; receiving, by a dynamic electronic identification association device of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a transaction terminal, and based at least in part on an exchange associated with the electronic card, associated with the dynamic electronic identification, a request to validate information associated with the dynamic electronic identification; validating, by the dynamic electronic identification association device, the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification, wherein validating the information comprises: sending, from the dynamic electronic identification association device, a verification request to a dynamic electronic identification management device, and receiving, by the dynamic electronic identification association device, validation from the dynamic electronic identification management device; and processing, by the dynamic electronic identification association device and based at least in part on validating the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification, the exchange with a transaction terminal”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an account management server of a dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a mobile device”, “a dynamic electronic identification association device of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a transaction terminal”, “a dynamic electronic identification management device”, and “a transaction terminal”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “validating card information of a user”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “validating card information of a user”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “validating card information of a user.” The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “validating card information of a user”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “validating card information of a user”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a validating card information of a user concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 10 is non-statutory.
Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of “validating card information of a user”, as well as the additional elements of “a system for dynamic electronic identification, the system comprising: one or more non-transitory memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more non-transitory memories, the one or more non-transitory memories containing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors in a dynamic electronic identification association platform causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform to perform the steps of: …”, “an account management server of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a mobile device”, “an electronic card of the user”, “a dynamic electronic identification association device of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a transaction terminal”, “a dynamic electronic identification management device”, and “a transaction terminal”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “validating card information of a user”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “validating card information of a user” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “one or more non-transitory memories”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 13 also recites the abstract idea of “validating card information of a user”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions when executed by one or more processors in a dynamic electronic identification association platform causes the one or more processors to perform the steps of: …”, “an account management server of the dynamic electronic identification association platform”, “a dynamic electronic identification association device of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a transaction terminal”, “a dynamic electronic identification management device”, and “a transaction terminal”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “validating card information of a user”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “validating card information of a user” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 13 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection, and submits that the cited sections of the applied references of Ali and Law, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose at least “validating the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification, wherein the dynamic electronic identification association platform when validating the information, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform to perform the steps of: sending, from the dynamic electronic identification association device, a verification request to a dynamic electronic identification management device”, as recited in claim 1, as amended. Although potentially of different scope than claim 1, independent claims 10 and 13, as amended, recite similar features. Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 13, and claims that depend thereon, are patentable over the cited sections of the applied references, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination.
Examiner has considered the argument and is not persuaded. Examiner submits that
Ali, FIG. 1, items 110, 120, 130, 140; para 51, discloses the electronic identity verification architecture that includes a merchant device, a Payment Transition Security (PTS) device, a cardholder-trusted device and an acquirer application on a back-end server to perform an identity verification.
Examiner submits that Ali, FIG. 7, items 114, 140, 700, 706, 708, 710, 712, 814, 816; para 57, discloses the validation of the received secure identification when receiving a transaction request from a cardholder device; and Ali, FIG. 11, items 114, 140, 142, 1108, 1110; para 71, discloses the electronic transaction component or module sending (e.g., transmitting) a merchant credentials validation request message to a back-end server application generating a public/private key pair. Examiner submits that Ali discloses, suggests, and/or teaches “validating the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification, wherein the dynamic electronic identification association platform when validating the information, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform to perform the steps of: sending, from the dynamic electronic identification association device, a verification request to a dynamic electronic identification management device”, as recited in claim 1, as amended, and in amended independent claims 10 and 13.
Therefore, the amended claim 1, as well as amended claims 10 and 13, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 2-9 which depend on claim 1; dependent claims 11-12 which depend on claim 10; and dependent claims 14-20, which depends on claim 13, also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a “system”; claims 10-12 are directed to a “method”; and claims 13-20 are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 10 recites “validating card information of a user”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving, by an account management server of a dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a mobile device, a request to associate a dynamic electronic identification of a user with an electronic card of the user; validating, by the account management server and based at least in part on receiving the request to associate the dynamic electronic identification with the electronic card, the dynamic electronic identification; receiving, by a dynamic electronic identification association device of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a transaction terminal, and based at least in part on an exchange associated with the electronic card, associated with the dynamic electronic identification, a request to validate information associated with the dynamic electronic identification; validating, by the dynamic electronic identification association device, the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification, wherein validating the information comprises: sending, from the dynamic electronic identification association device, a verification request to a dynamic electronic identification management device, and receiving, by the dynamic electronic identification association device, validation from the dynamic electronic identification management device; and processing, by the dynamic electronic identification association device and based at least in part on validating the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification, the exchange with a transaction terminal”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an account management server of a dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a mobile device”, “a dynamic electronic identification association device of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a transaction terminal”, “a dynamic electronic identification management device”, and “a transaction terminal”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “validating card information of a user”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “validating card information of a user” using computer technology (e.g., “a mobile device” and “an account manager server of a dynamic electronic identification association platform”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 10 is non-statutory.
Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of “validating card information of a user”, as well as the additional elements of “a system for dynamic electronic identification, the system comprising: one or more non-transitory memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more non-transitory memories, the one or more non-transitory memories containing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors in a dynamic electronic identification association platform causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform to perform the steps of: …”, “an account management server of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a mobile device”, “an electronic card of the user”, “a dynamic electronic identification association device of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a transaction terminal”, “a dynamic electronic identification management device”, and “ a transaction terminal”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “validating card information of a user”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “validating card information of a user” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “one or more non-transitory memories”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 13 also recites the abstract idea of “validating card information of a user”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions when executed by one or more processors in a dynamic electronic identification association platform causes the one or more processors to perform the steps of: …”, “an account management server of the dynamic electronic identification association platform”, “a dynamic electronic identification association device of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a transaction terminal”, “a dynamic electronic identification management device”, and “a transaction terminal”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “validating card information of a user”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “validating card information of a user” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 13 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-12, and 14-20 further describe the abstract idea of “validating card information of a user”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 13.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “validating card information of a user”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 4, 12, and 16 recite a new additional element of “a mobile application of the mobile device”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of “validating card information of a user”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 7 and 18 recite a new additional element of “an age-restricted exchange”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of “validating card information of a user”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Hence, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 2, 11, and 14 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 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.
Written Description
Claim 2 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the dynamic electronic identification is to obtain dynamic updates.” The specification does not adequately inform one of ordinary skill how the limitation “the dynamic electronic identification is to obtain dynamic updates” is to be performed. Specification, (PG Pub US 20250156838 A1, para 18, discloses “… the dynamic electronic identification may be configured for dynamic updates … the dynamic electronic identification may be dynamically updated with changes to identification information … the dynamic electronic identification may be dynamically updated with changes to an updated address of the user, an updated name of the user, updated physical features of the user, or the like …”, which discloses the types of updating to the dynamic electronic identification, but lacks a description of how the dynamic electronic identification is to obtain the dynamic updates.
Specification, (‘838 A1, para 29), recites “… The dynamic electronic identification being configured for dynamic updates may help to maintain the security of the electronic card. …”, which discloses the dynamic electronic identification being configured for dynamic updates, but lacks a description of how the dynamic electronic identification is to obtain the dynamic updates.
Thus, as the specification lacks a teaching of the “the dynamic electronic identification is to obtain dynamic updates”, Applicant has not provided sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill would understand how the function of " the dynamic electronic identification is to obtain dynamic updates " is to be performed. Therefore, the written description is not necessarily met. Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 11 and 14. (MPEP § 2161.01 (I) and MPEP § 2163.03 (V)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Improper Dependent Claim
Claim 3 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors in the dynamic electronic identification association platform, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform to perform the steps of: providing, to a dynamic electronic identification management device, a request to validate the dynamic electronic identification; and receiving, from the dynamic electronic identification management device, a validation of the dynamic electronic identification”. Claim 5 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors in the dynamic electronic identification association platform, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform to perform the steps of: providing, to the dynamic electronic identification management device, a request to validate the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification; and receiving, from the dynamic electronic identification management device, a validation of the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification”. Claim 5 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 3, and therefore, claim 5 does not further limit claim 1. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Following the statute, the test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200410494 A1), herein referred to as Ali, and in further view of Law et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150134540 A1), herein referred to as Law.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 13, Ali discloses a system (FIG. 1, items 110, 120, 130, 140; para 51, “… The electronic identity verification architecture 100 includes a merchant device 110, a PTS device 120, a cardholder-trusted device 130 and an acquirer application 142 on a back-end server 140 …”) for dynamic electronic identification, the system comprising: one or more memories (FIG. 12, item 1204; para 81, “… FIG. 12 illustrates, in a block schematic diagram, an example of a computing device 1200 … There is provided a schematic diagram of computing device 1200, exemplary of an embodiment … computing device 1200 includes at least one processor 1202, memory 1204, at least one I/O interface 1206, and at least one network interface 1208 …”; para 83, “… Memory 1204 may include a computer memory that is located either internally or externally such as, for example, random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), compact disc read-only memory (CDROM), electro-optical memory, magneto optical memory, erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), and electrically-erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), Ferroelectric RAM (FRAM) …”); and
one or more non-transitory memories (FIG. 12, item 1204; para 81, “… FIG. 12 illustrates … an example of a computing device 1200 ... There is provided a schematic diagram of computing device 1200 ... As depicted, computing device 1200 includes at least one processor 1202, memory 1204, at least one I/O interface 1206, and at least one network interface 1208 …”; para 83, “… Memory 1204 may include a computer memory that is located either internally or externally such as, for example, random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), compact disc read-only memory (CDROM), electro-optical memory, magneto optical memory, erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), and electrically-erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), Ferroelectric RAM (FRAM) …”); and
one or more processors (FIG. 12, item 1202; para 81, “… FIG. 12 illustrates … an example of a computing device 1200 ... There is provided a schematic diagram of computing device 1200 .... computing device 1200 includes at least one processor 1202, memory 1204, at least one I/O interface 1206, and at least one network interface 1208 …”; para 82, “… Each processor 1202 may be a microprocessor or microcontroller, a digital signal processing (DSP) processor, an integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a reconfigurable processor, a programmable read only memory (PROM), or any combination thereof …”), coupled to the one or more memories,
the one or more non-transitory memories (FIG. 12, item 1204; para 81, 83) containing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (para 10, “… The system comprises at least one processor configured to execute instructions, and a memory storing a sequence of instructions which when executed by the at least one processor perform a method of verifying an electronic identity …”) in a dynamic electronic identification association platform causes dynamic electronic identification association platform (FIG. 1, items 110, 120, 130, 140; para 51) to perform the steps of:
receiving, by an account management server of the dynamic electronic identification association platform (FIG. 1, item 140; para 51, “… The electronic identity verification architecture 100 includes a merchant device 110, a PTS device 120, a cardholder-trusted device 130 and an acquirer application 142 on a back-end server 140 …”; para 54, “… The acquirer back-end server 140 may comprise at least one processor configured to execute instructions, and a memory storing a sequence of instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, carry out the method of verifying an electronic identity 400. The method 400 comprises receiving 402, from a merchant device, a request for a transaction identifier (ID) associated with a transaction between the merchant device and a cardholder-trusted device …”) and from a mobile device (FIG. 1, item 110; para 51, “… The merchant device 110 may be a smart phone or tablet that includes a merchant point of sale application 112 and an electronic transaction component or module 114 that communicates, by wire or wirelessly, with the acquirer application 142 on the back-end server 140 …”; FIG. 10, item 130; para 69, “… The environment 1000 also includes a cardholder device (e.g., consumer mobile device such as a tablet, smartphone, etc.) 130 that communicates with the merchant environment 1002 and the acquirer system 140 …”), a request to associate a dynamic electronic identification of a user with an electronic card of the user (FIG. 4, items 400, 402; para 54, “… The method 400 comprises receiving 402, from a merchant device, a request for a transaction identifier (ID) associated with a transaction between the merchant device and a cardholder-trusted device …”); …
validating the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification (FIG. 7, items 114, 140, 700, 706, 708, 710, 712, 814, 816; para 57, “… The method 700 may be performed by an acquirer application 142 running on the back-end server 140 … aspects of the method 700 may be performed on a third party server, such as validation of the received secure identification. The method 700 comprises receiving 706 a transaction request from a cardholder device 130, sending 708 the public key to the cardholder device 130, receiving 710 a secure cardholder identification that is encrypted using the public key from the cardholder device 130, and sending 712 the encrypted secure cardholder identification to the electronic transaction component or module 114 …”), wherein the dynamic electronic identification association platform when validating the information, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform (FIG. 1, items 110, 120, 130, 140; para 51) to perform the steps of:
sending, from the dynamic electronic identification association device (FIG. 1, item 140; para 51), a verification request to a dynamic electronic identification management device (FIG. 11, items 114, 140, 142, 1108, 1110; para 71, “… The electronic transaction component or module 114 may send (e.g., transmit) an electronic transaction component or module and merchant credentials validation request message 708 to a back-end server 140 application 142 … the electronic transaction component or module 114 may generate a public/private key pair and send the public key to the back-end server either before, during or after step 1108 …”), and
receiving, by the dynamic electronic identification association device (FIG. 1, item 140; para 51), a validation from the dynamic electronic identification management device (FIG. 11, items 114, 140, 142, 1108, 1110; para 71, “… The back-end server 140 application 142 may then send (e.g., transmit) a validation response message 1110 to the electronic transaction component or module 114. The validation response message may include a secure communication method code (e.g., a QR code associated with a transaction ID, other element associated with a transaction ID, or a transaction ID) and payment session ID associated with the purchase transaction. In some embodiments, a QR code or other element associated with the transaction ID may be generated and tied to the received secure communication method code …”); and
processing, based at least in part on validating the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification, (FIG. 8, items 824, 826, 828, 830, 832, 834, 836, 838, 840; para 62, “… cardholder may enter their PIN ( or other secure cardholder identification) on the trusted cardholder device 130. Once the trusted cardholder device 130 receives 824 the PIN (or other secure cardholder identification), the trusted cardholder device 130 sends 826 the PIN (or other secure cardholder identification) to an acquirer application 142 on the back-end server 140 … The application on the back-end server 140 sends the PIN (or other secure card-holder identification) to the electronic transaction component or module 114 that then sends 830 the PIN (or other secure cardholder identification) to the PTS device 120 … step 830 is an example of the transmitting 206 the PIN to a PTS device as shown in the method 200 of FIG. 2 … the secure cardholder identification is sent encrypted using the public key to the electronic transaction component or module 114 that then decrypts the secure cardholder identification and sends it securely (e.g., encrypted using other means) to the PTS device 120 …”; para 63, “… The cardholder PIN (or other secure cardholder identification) is then validated 832 by the card in the PTS device 120. The PTS device 120 returns 834 card information used for the transaction (e.g., card number) to the electronic transaction component or module 114. The electronic transaction component or module 114 sends 836 the transaction request to the application 142 on the back end server 140 for processing … The electronic transaction component or module 114 returns 840 a transaction response to the merchant application 112 …”) the exchange with a transaction terminal (FIG. 1, items 110, 112, 114; para 51, “… The merchant device 110 may be a smart phone or tablet that includes a merchant point of sale application 112 and an electronic transaction component or module 114 that communicates, by wire or wirelessly, with the acquirer application 142 on the back-end server 140 … the electronic transaction module 114 may be a standalone application on the merchant device 110 that communicates with a merchant application 112, PTS device 120 and the back-end server 140 …”).
With respect to claim 13, Ali further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions (para 88, “… represent one or more computing devices having at least one processor configured to execute software instructions stored on a computer readable tan-gible, non-transitory medium …”; para 89, “… The software product may be stored in a non-volatile or non-transitory storage medium, which can be a compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), a USB flash disk, or a removable hard disk. The software product includes a number of instructions that enable a computer device (personal computer, server, or network device) to execute the methods provided by the embodiments …”) when executed by one or more processors in a dynamic electronic identification association platform (FIG. 1, items 110, 120, 130, 140; para 51) causes the one or more processors to perform the steps of: …
Ali does not specifically disclose, however, Law discloses validating, by the account management server (FIG. 17, item 506; para 88, “… The merchant acquirer and the payment gateway server 506 are in communication with a payment network (e.g. Visa, MasterCard, Discover, etc.), which is configured to send data related to payments and transactions to relevant parties, including the payment gateway server 506 and the funding card issuer 104 (e.g. a server) …”) and based at least in part on receiving the request to associate the dynamic electronic identification with the electronic card, the dynamic electronic identification (FIG. 17, items 506, 508, 509; para 90, “… The server 506 can include the virtual card issuer 401, the virtual card operator 402 and the virtual card acquirer 403. During a registration process conducted by the user 101, the payment gateway server 506 stores the user selected personal identification number (PIN), funding card data in association with the user's mobile device ID (e.g. in database 508) … the user PIN, funding card1 and funding card2 (and other funding cards) are stored in association with the mobile device ID of mobile device 501 … in database 509, the temporary data associations between a given funding card, a virtual card and authorisation code when applicable are stored … virtual card 1, funding card 1 and authorisation code 1 are all stored in association with each other's …”);
receiving, by a dynamic electronic identification association device of the dynamic electronic identification association platform and from a transaction terminal, and based at least in part on an exchange associated with the electronic card, associated with the dynamic electronic identification, a request to validate information associated with the dynamic electronic identification (para 70, “… When a user taps, touches or positions their mobile device near a contactless-enabled point of sale (POS) terminal, the funding card data (card number, dynamic data, expiry date, etc.), hereafter referred to as the card's Track Two data, is sent from the mobile device to the POS terminal. This information then makes it way to the funding card issuing server for verification. The funding card issuer will perform numerous checks to validate the transaction, including comparing the dynamic data of the mobile device with the value generated by the server. If the dynamic data is matching, and all the other checks and controls performed by the funding card issuer are successful, the funding card issuer will respond with a positive payment authorisation response …”; FIG. 8, item 803; para 117, “… The payment gateway server 506 validates the vir-tual card data (block 803). To validate the virtual card data received from the mobile device (via the merchant acquirer 103), the payment gateway server computes the Track Two data set on its own …”; para 118, “… The validation of the virtual card data in block 803 can also include verifying if the internal expiry date associated with the virtual card has passed or not. If the present date of the validation is occurring before or on the internal expiry date, then the virtual card can be considered validated and the transaction processing can continue. Otherwise, the virtual card is deemed invalid and the payment authorisation request is denied …”); and …
Law discloses systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device, as in Law, to improve and/or enhance the technology for electronic identity verification, as in Ali, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a system and method to facilitate a payment transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device so that the funding card details do not pass directly through the merchant and the merchant acquirer, which can expose or reveal sensitive financial data, and to avoid the security risk posed by such a computer payment system.
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 15, Ali and Law disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Ali further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors in the dynamic electronic identification association platform, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform (para 10, “… The system comprises at least one processor configured to execute instructions, and a memory storing a sequence of instructions which when executed by the at least one processor perform a method of verifying an electronic identity …”; para 54, “… The acquirer back-end server 140 may comprise at least one processor configured to execute instructions, and a memory storing a sequence of instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, carry out the method of verifying an electronic identity 400 …”) to perform the steps of:
providing, to a dynamic electronic identification management device (FIG. 1, items 100, 110, 120, 130, 140; para 51, “… The electronic identity verification architecture 100 includes a merchant device 110, a PTS device 120, a cardholder-trusted device 130 and an acquirer application 142 on a back-end server 140 …”), a request to validate the dynamic electronic identification (FIG. 8, items 810, 812; para 60, “… The electronic transaction (ET) component or module 114 may then return 808 the unique transaction ID component and payment session ID to the merchant appli-cation 112 … the public key described in FIG. 7 is sent to the back-end server 140. The merchant application 112 or the electronic transaction component or module 114 may then prompt 810 a cardholder to enter a card (e.g., a debit or credit card). The electronic transaction component or module 114 may then invoke 812 a call to the PTS device 120 … that in this step 812 there may be multiple messages (back and forth) between the PTS device 120 and the electronic transaction component or module 114 (e.g., device ready). Once the cardholder card is entered and read 814 by the PTS device 120, the PTS device 120 may validate the card and return 816 a prompt for the PIN (or other secure cardholder identification) to the electronic transaction component or module 114. The electronic transaction component or module 114 may then return 818 the prompt for the PIN (or other secure cardholder identification) to the merchant application 112. The merchant device 110 then displays 820 the unique transaction ID component (e.g., QR code)…”); and
receiving, from the dynamic electronic identification management device (FIG. 1, items 100, 110, 120, 130, 140; para 51), a validation of the dynamic electronic identification (FIG. 8, items 814, 816; para 60).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 16, Ali and Law disclose the limitations of claim 1, 10, and 13. Ali does not specifically disclose, however, Law discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic card and the dynamic electronic identification are associated with a mobile application of the mobile device (para 130, “… The virtual card operator 402 then encrypts and sends the virtual card data (e.g. virtual card PAN, external expiry date, etc.) required by the mobile application to gen-erate the final virtual card data set card (block 907). The result forms an encrypted virtual card payload that is sent to the mobile device 501 (block 908) …”; para 134, “… The flow starts after the mobile device 501 has received the encrypted virtual card payload, decrypted the virtual card payload, captured via the GUI the user's PIN, and computed the complete virtual card data set (e.g. the complete Track Two data set). At that point, the mobile application can send the virtual card data set to the POS terminal device 502 via the NFC subsystem 609 (block 910). The POS terminal device 502 sends the virtual card data, along with transaction data, to the merchant acquirer 103 (block 911 ). The merchant acquirer 103 sends a payment authorisation request, which includes the virtual card data and the amount of payment, to the virtual card issuing server 401 (block 913) via the payment network …”; para 203, “… the user simply taps a taps a contactless card on the mobile device so that the mobile application can capture the card details and send it to the payment gateway server for registration … the funding card identifier is a value that is different from the PAN, expiry date or static security code of the funding card… the funding card identifier is a random value so that, if intercepted by an adversary, would not be able to recognize any funding card details … the mobile device does not store any funding card details or stores limited funding card details (e.g. the name funding card issuer and the last 4 digits of the PAN). The mobile device stores the funding card identifier, which it sends to the payment gateway server to indicate a specific funding card …”).
Law discloses systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device, as in Law, to improve and/or enhance the technology for electronic identity verification, as in Ali, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide contactless funding card technology to facilitate payment transactions by including dynamic data from the card to securely authenticate the payment credential. The dynamic data changes values every time the credential is used thus providing more security and less potential for fraud in conducting payment transactions.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Ali and Law disclose the limitations of claim 1 and 13. Ali does not specifically disclose, however, Law discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the exchange is associated with an event (para 76, “… the data required to compute virtual card data set is sent to the mobile device, typically every time that the user wants to make a payment … a new virtual card is created for each and every payment transaction … a new virtual card is created based on time limits, or based on certain events, or both, and has a much shorter usage period compared to a standard funding card which can be used typically over sev-eral years. Where the virtual card can be used with the funding card for several transactions, a data for computing a new virtual card does not need to be sent to the mobile device each time the user makes a payment …”), and wherein the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification is associated with user access to the event (para 82, “… the registration, for each funding card the user wishes to register, the user enters in (e.g. types in) card details into the mobile device (e.g. card details include the name printed on the funding card, the PAN printed on the funding card, the expiry date printed on the funding card, and the static security code printed on the funding card). The mobile device sends this data, plus a user provided PIN and the mobile device ID to the payment gate-way server. For each funding card, the payment gateway server computes a funding card identifier which identifies the given funding card. The payment gateway server stores the funding card identifier in association with the funding card details, mobile device ID and PIN, and it sends the funding card identifier to the mobile device for storage … the funding card identifier is a value that is different from the PAN, expiry date or static security code of the funding card …”).
Law discloses systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device, as in Law, to improve and/or enhance the technology for electronic identity verification, as in Ali, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a system and method to facilitate a payment transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device so that the funding card details do not pass directly through the merchant and the merchant acquirer, which can expose or reveal sensitive financial data, and to avoid the security risk posed by such a computer payment system.
Claims 2, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200410494 A1), herein referred to as Ali, in view of Law et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150134540 A1), herein referred to as Law, and in further view of Zarakas et al (U. S. Patent No. 10475025 B2), herein referred to as Zarakas.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 14, Ali and Law disclose the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 13. Ali and Law do not specifically disclose, however, Zarakas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the dynamic electronic identification is dynamically updated with changes to identification information (C/L 4/25-40, “… Upon establishing a secure connection between the dynamic transaction card and a mobile device, the dynamic transaction card may request updated account information for accounts stored on the dynamic transaction card. A mobile device may store an application associated with the financial institution that maintains the account(s) associated with the dynamic transaction card and, upon receiving a request for updated account information from the dynamic transaction card, the financial institution application stored on the mobile device may be activated to request updated financial account information from a backend system of the financial institution maintaining the account. The financial institution application on the mobile device allows for a secure connection to be established between the mobile device and a backend system of the financial institution …”; C/L 4/47-56, “… A financial institution application running on a mobile device may receive data from a dynamic transaction card that allows the application to communicate with a financial institution backend to receive updated information without received credentials input on the mobile device … a mobile device and dynamic transaction card may be paired to each other such that once the dynamic transaction card and mobile device are paired, a secure communications channel may be established for all future communications …”; FIG. 5, item 506, 508; C/L 31/50-53, “… At block 506, upon activation, a dynamic transaction card may request updated data via … a mobile device, an EMV terminal, and/or any computing device capable of communicating with a financial institution …”; C/L 32/7-14, “… At block 508, data updates, such as transaction data, transaction history, account balance, account limit, budget category, remaining budget amount, spending per category, and/or like may be received at the dynamic transaction card via an antenna, such as antenna 224, or an EMV chip, such as EMV chip 212. Data updates may be stored within the dynamic transaction card and recalled on the dynamic transaction card at any time upon activation …”).
Zarakas discloses updating an existing dynamic transaction card. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include updating an existing dynamic transaction card, as in Zarakas; and to include systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device, as in Law, to improve and/or enhance the technology for electronic identity verification, as in Ali, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a system and method to securely update an existing dynamic transaction card held by an account holder with an additional account and/or account data to avoid having to re-issue a new payment card when a fraud determination is made with respect to the payment card.
Claims 6-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200410494 A1), herein referred to as Ali, in view of Law et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150134540 A1), herein referred to as Law, and in further view of Gilbert et al (U. S. Patent No. 10521782 B2), herein referred to as Gilbert.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Ali and Law disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Ali and Law do not specifically disclose, however, Gilbert discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors, in the dynamic electronic identification association platform, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform (FIG. 1, 2, 3, items 100, 105, 110, 150, 165, 167, 200, 205; C/L 3/43-49, “… As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the financial transaction system 100 includes a consumer terminal 105. The consumer terminal 105 generally includes a processor 150, one or more memory units (not shown), one or more data entry apparatus 160, and one or more data output apparatus 165. The processor 150 interprets and executes instructions stored as one or more software modules 167 …”; C/L 4/22-29, “… As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, the system 100 further includes a business entity terminal 110. The business terminal 110 includes one or more processors 200 and one or more memory units (not shown) that together provide a platform for hosting a web site at which consumers can purchase goods or services. The processor 200 interprets and executes instructions stored as one or more software modules 205 …”) to perform the steps of: processing, based at least in part on validating the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification, the exchange (C/L 10/3-8, “… The consumer-supplied password verifies that the correct consumer is submitting the encrypted data. As will be discussed below, when the encrypted data is decrypted, …”; C/L 10/35-42, “… Upon receipt of the transaction data, the payment administrator terminal 115 collects the data, organizes the data and forwards the data to the electronic financial transaction system 120. When the electronic financial transaction system 120 receives the transaction data, the system identifies the transaction type, processes the transaction, and transmits the outcome or necessary data to the interested entities or terminals …”).
Gilbert discloses effecting an electronic transaction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include effecting an electronic transaction, as in Gilbert; and to include systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device, as in Law, to improve and/or enhance the technology for electronic identity verification, as in Ali, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a system and a method for effecting an electronic transaction where the business may require additional information not typically included in conventional debit transactions, especially if the consumer is purchasing an age restricted product and/or service, e.g., alcohol, guns/ammo, renting a car, tobacco, etc.
Regarding claim 7 and 18, Ali and Law disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Ali, Law, and Gilbert disclose the limitations of claims 6 and 17. Ali and Law do not specifically disclose, however, Gilbert discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the exchange is an age-restricted exchange, and wherein the information associated with the dynamic electronic identification includes an age of the user (C/L 9/43-55, “… the payment administrator terminal 115 may transmit software to the consumer terminal 105 that interacts with the consumer terminal 105 to acquire the transaction data, including the encrypted data. The encrypted data is data stored on a computer readable media and include encrypted consumer specific data and encrypted financial account data. Example consumer specific data include a consumer name, a consumer postal address, a consumer residency or legal domicile (if different than the address), at least one consumer password, a date of birth of the consumer, an age of the consumer (if the date of birth is not provided), an email address, a citizenship of the con-sumer, etc. …”; C/L 12/40-60, “… the consumer specific data may include a mailing address for mailing goods, a place of residence for calculating taxes, a citizenship for preventing exportation of various goods, a phone number for voice confirmation, and a date of birth for age verification, etc. … The date of birth may be used by the business entity to verify that the consumer is of legal age to perform he transaction (e.g., is older than twenty-one for purchasing alcohol). In such a scenario, the electronic financial transaction system may forward a confirmation to the payment administrator that the consumer is a valid age for completing the transaction. Alternatively, the transaction may include a parameter to reduce the transaction price based on the consumer age (e.g., is older than sixty-five). Of course, not all encrypted data may be required for the pending transaction and other information may be added to the encrypted data …”; C/L 13/1-8, “… If the consumer provided password matches the decrypted password and the consumer meets parameters regarding the consumer's demographics (e.g., is of proper age), then the rules engine 353 proceeds to generate and assign a token to the data. Otherwise, the rules engine returns the transaction to the main processor 300 for logging the transaction and returning the transaction to the proper parties stating it cannot process the transaction …”).
Gilbert discloses effecting an electronic transaction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include effecting an electronic transaction, as in Gilbert; and to include systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device, as in Law, to improve and/or enhance the technology for electronic identity verification, as in Ali, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a system and a method for effecting an electronic transaction where the business may require additional information not typically included in conventional debit transactions, especially if the consumer is purchasing an age restricted product and/or service, e.g., alcohol, guns/ammo, renting a car, tobacco, etc.
Regarding claim 8 and 19, Ali and Law disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Ali, Law, and Gilbert disclose the limitations of claims 6 and 17. Ali and Law do not specifically disclose, however, Gilbert discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors in the dynamic electronic identification association platform, causes the dynamic electronic identification association platform (FIG. 1, 2, 3, items 100, 105, 110, 150, 165, 167, 200, 205; C/L 3/43-49; C/L 4/22-29) to perform the steps of: providing an indication that the exchange has been processed (C/L 3/11-33, “… One embodiment of a system 100 for performing a transaction between a consumer and a business entity of the invention is shown in FIG. 1. As used within this application, the consumer is any first party paying currency to a second party for the purchase or use of goods, services, or property. The business entity is any second party receiving payment from a first party for the purchase or use of goods, services or property. The transaction may be a purchase of goods, services or property, a purchase of the temporary right to the use of goods, or property, or the purchase of an expectation to receive goods, services or property … the transaction will be described as a simple purchase of goods or services … if the business entity is receiving the currency or funds at the time the transaction is being entered into, then that transaction is referred to as an "immediate transaction." Alternatively, if the consumer and business entity agree that a transfer of currency will occur at a later time, then the original agreement is a "set-up transaction" and the later payment is a "subsequent transaction." For some transactions, the later payment may be a repetitive payment (e.g., a monthly payment). This type of subsequent transaction is referred to as a "recurring transaction ..."”; C/L 17/9-13, “… the system and method of the invention are useful to facilitate delayed and recurring payment transactions, to verify the consumer meets a predetermined requirement (e.g., an age requirement), and/or to determine the consum-er's legal place of domicile …”).
Gilbert discloses effecting an electronic transaction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include effecting an electronic transaction, as in Gilbert; and to include systems and methods for facilitating a transaction using a virtual card on a mobile device, as in Law, to improve and/or enhance the technology for electronic identity verification, as in Ali, because it would amount to combining elements that in the combination would perform the same function as they functioned separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the references to provide a system and a method for effecting an electronic transaction where the business may require additional information not typically included in conventional debit transactions, especially if the consumer is purchasing an age restricted product and/or service, e.g., alcohol, guns/ammo, renting a car, tobacco, etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Meoli et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160210699 A1) – Methods And Systems For Providing Digital Identification Cards For Mobile Applications
Meoli discloses methods and systems for providing digital identification cards. In one aspect, the disclosed embodiments may provide digital identification cards, such as proof of insurance cards, to mobile devices that are compliant with one or more standards set by identification-requiring organizations, such as a department of motor vehicles. Certain disclosed embodiments may update digital identification cards based on changes to user information or formatting information associated with one or more identification-requiring organizations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights