DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 9 and 32-40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim recites “EMV” which is abbreviation.
The first occurrence of all acronyms or abbreviations should be written out for clarity, whether or not they may be considered well known. For example, first occurrence of “EMV” in claims should be written out “EMV” (Europay, Mastercard and Visa).
Claims 32-40 recite “A device according to claim 31…”, which should be corrected into “The device according to claim 31…”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Status of the claims
4. Applicant filed the Amendment on 03/02/2026. Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are amended. Claims 21-30 are canceled. Claims 31-40 are newly added. Claims 1-10 and 31-40 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-10 and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. In the instant case, claims 1 and 31 are directed to a “method and device for facilitating a contactless payment via mobile device using hybrid communications approach”.
8. Claim 1 recites “performing a payment transaction”. Specifically, the claim recites “…which is configured to receive payment information …; and … the method including: (i) receiving, externally … a primary payment signal … wherein the primary payment signal is transmitted …; (ii) processing, externally … the received primary payment signal by converting payment information received … into a secondary payment signal formatted … wherein the secondary payment signal is configured to be transmitted … thereby to provide … with information required to take further processing steps in relation to an in-progress payment transaction; and (iii) transmitting … configured to receive payment information … and to output … payment signals, the secondary payment signal …thereby to trigger a process… which includes taking the further processing steps in relation to the in-progress payment transaction”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
9. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “a contactless payment”, “a mobile device”, “a networked payment terminal”, “a contactless manner”, “Near Field Communications (NFC) technology”, “a mobile device having an NFC chipset”, “a further wireless communications interface”, “NFC-based contactless communication”, “NFC”, “NFC transmission hardware of an external device”, and “NFC-formatted payment signals” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, as they do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “(i) receiving, externally of the mobile device, a primary payment signal from the mobile device, wherein the primary payment signal is transmitted by the mobile device via the further wireless communications interface” and “(iii) transmitting, via NFC transmission hardware of an external device, the external device configured to receive payment information from the mobile device via the further wireless communications interface and to output NFC-formatted payment signals, the secondary payment signal to the networked payment terminal via NFC, thereby to trigger a process in the networked payment terminal which includes taking the further processing steps in relation to the in-progress payment transaction” is simply sending data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
10. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), 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 describes the concept of performing a payment transaction using computer technology. Therefore, as the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, they cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
11. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
12. Claim 31 also recites “performing a payment transaction”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
13. As in the case of claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 31 such as “a device”, “a contactless payment”, “a mobile device”, “a networked payment terminal”, “a contactless manner”, “Near Field Communications (NFC) technology”, “a mobile device having an NFC chipset”, “a further wireless communications interface”, “NFC-based contactless communication”, “NFC”, “NFC transmission hardware of an external device”, and “NFC-formatted payment signals” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
14. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to performing a payment transaction and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
15. Hence, claim 31 is not patent eligible.
16. The following dependent claims recent additional elements not addressed above:
claims 3 and 33 recite “biometric authentication”;
claims 4 and 34 recite “an authentication token”;
claims 5 and 35 recite “an authentication token” and “a remote system”;
claims 7 and 37 recite “a Bluetooth signal” and “a Bluetooth interface”;
claims 8 and 38 recite “a WiFi signal” and “a WiFi interface”;
claim 9 recites “an EMV-compliant payment terminal”; and
claim 39 recites “a Europay MasterCard and Visa compliant (EMV-compliant) payment terminal”.
When considered individually, and as a whole, each of these additional elements amount to merely “apply it”, as they are merely applying the abstract idea to the technical environment of the biometric authentication, the authentication token, the remote system, the Bluetooth signal, the Bluetooth interface, the WiFi signal, the WiFi interface, and the EMV-compliant payment terminal.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 32-40 merely expand upon the abstract ideas of the independent claims 1 and 31, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 31 respectively.
Conclusion of 35 USC §101
17. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
18. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Claims 1-2, 7-10, 31-32, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200286070A1 to Garrett in view of US10740746B2 to Boivie.
23. As per claim 1:
Garrett discloses the following limitations:
A method for facilitating a contactless payment via a mobile device ([0046], [0065] discloses that the EdgeLink module is an external device that facilitates contactless payment between a smartphone and POS terminals)
a networked payment terminal which is configured to receive payment information from a mobile device in a contactless manner via Near Field Communications (NFC) technology ([0064], [0066] discloses that the POS terminal is NFC-enabled networked payment terminal that receives contactless payment data)
a mobile device having an NFC chipset, and a further wireless communications interface (Fig.6, items 601, 603; [0046], [0072] discloses that the smartphone has NFC and BLE wireless capability)
receiving, externally of the mobile device, a primary payment signal from the mobile device, wherein the primary payment signal is transmitted by the mobile device via the further wireless communications interface (Fig.6, item 602; [0053], [0073] discloses that the external module receives payment transaction instructions/data from the smartphone application via BLE (non-NFC wireless interface))
(ii) processing, externally of the mobile device, the received primary payment signal by converting payment information received via the further wireless communications interface into a secondary payment signal formatted for NFC-based contactless communication with the networked payment terminal, wherein the secondary payment signal is configured to be transmitted to the networked payment terminal via NFC, thereby to provide to the networked payment terminal with information required to take further processing steps in relation to an in-progress payment transaction (Fig.3B, [0058]-[0059] discloses that the module processes the payment request received via BLE by activating the appropriate card application in its secure element and formatting the transaction for NFC communication based on POS parameters)
(iii) transmitting, via NFC transmission hardware of an external device, … the secondary payment signal to the networked payment terminal via NFC, thereby to trigger a process in the networked payment terminal which includes taking the further processing steps in relation to the in-progress payment transaction ([0050], [0066], [claim 1] discloses that the module transmits NFC signals via its own NFC transceiver chip/controller and coil to the POS terminal, emulating a smart card to complete the payment transaction)
Garrett does not disclose, however, Boivie, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
the external device configured to receive payment information from the mobile device via the further wireless communications interface and to output NFC-formatted payment signals (Col.2, lines 50-52, 53-56, 63-64, 67; col.4, lines 5-6; col.12, lines17-18; discloses that the accessory device that receives payment data via Bluetooth and outputs NFC-formatted signals to the payment terminal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a terminal comprising the wireless network circuit includes a Bluetooth circuit that is configured to establish a Bluetooth link with the accessory device, encrypt the NFC encrypted transaction data to output combined Bluetooth+NFC encrypted transaction data of Boivie (‘746, col.1, lines 51-55) with teaching of Garrett for NFC card emulation—enables NFC-enabled devices such as smartphones to act like smart cards, allowing users to perform transactions such as payment or ticketing (‘070, [0004]) for receiving payment data via Bluetooth and outputs NFC-formatted signals to the payment terminal (‘746, col.2, lines 53-56).
Claim 31 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
24. As per claim 2:
Garrett discloses the following limitations:
The method according to claim 1 wherein the primary payment signal is received from the mobile device in response to the mobile device receiving a signal, via NFC, from the networked payment terminal ([0050], [0058] discloses that the module operates in NFC card emulation mode, where the POS terminal initiates by transmitting an NFC signal, and the module responds and the payment transaction is initiated is response to the terminal NFC polling signal)
Claim 32 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
25. As per claim 7:
Garrett discloses the following limitations:
The method according to claim 1 wherein the primary payment signal is a Bluetooth signal, and wherein the further wireless communications interface is a Bluetooth interface ([0051], [0073], [claim 1], [claim 2] discloses BLE wireless interface between the smartphone and the EdgeLink module and the payment transaction data is transmitted as a BLE/Bluetooth signal from the smartphone application to the module)
Claim 37 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
26. As per claim 8:
Garrett does not disclose, however, Boivie, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The method according to claim 1 wherein the primary payment signal is a WiFi signal, and wherein the further wireless communications interface is a WiFi interface (Col.5, lines 11-16; col.7, lines 52-56; discloses WLAN (WiFi, IEEE 802.11) is explicitly disclosed as an alternative to Bluetooth for communication between the mobile terminal and accessory device, and WiFi is mentioned as an alternative option)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a terminal comprising the wireless network circuit includes a Bluetooth circuit that is configured to establish a Bluetooth link with the accessory device, encrypt the NFC encrypted transaction data to output combined Bluetooth+NFC encrypted transaction data of Boivie (‘746, col.1, lines 51-58) with teaching of Garrett for NFC card emulation—enables NFC-enabled devices such as smartphones to act like smart cards, allowing users to perform transactions such as payment or ticketing (‘070, [0004]) for providing variety cellular transceivers, such as WiMax transceiver, or other communication transceiver configured to communicate with a network node of a communications system (‘746, col.7, lines 54-58).
Claim 38 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8.
27. As per claim 9:
Garrett discloses the following limitations:
The method according to claim 1 wherein the networked payment terminal is an EMV-compliant payment terminal ([0064], [0069] discloses that the EMV is mentioned in connection with the POS terminal, which supports EMV smart chip card transactions in addition to NFC and MST)
Claim 39 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 9.
28. As per claim 10:
Garrett discloses the following limitations:
The method according to claim 1 wherein processing the primary payment signal, thereby to define a secondary payment signal includes performing a secure data conversion operation ([0055], [0058] discloses that the module performs secure data conversion by receiving payment instructions via BLE (encrypted communication channel), processing them through the secure element with crypto processors, activating the appropriate card application, and formatting the data from NFC transmission)
Claim 40 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 10.
29. Claims 3 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200286070A1 to Garrett in view of US10740746B2 to Boivie and US12026705B2 to Khan.
30. As per claim 3:
Neither Garrett, nor Boivie disclose, however, Khan, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The method according to claim 1 wherein the primary payment signal is defined by the mobile device only after successful biometric authentication of an authorized user of the mobile device (Col.7, lines 3-7, col.11, lines 57-66; col.16, lines 25-28, 30-32; discloses a mobile device with a biometric sensor that authenticates the user before the payment applet can conduct the NFC financial transaction)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a terminal comprising the wireless network circuit includes a Bluetooth circuit that is configured to establish a Bluetooth link with the accessory device, encrypt the NFC encrypted transaction data to output combined Bluetooth+NFC encrypted transaction data of Boivie (‘746, col.1, lines 51-58) and the electronic device having a biometric sensor, and the local authentication information may include a biometric identifier acquired by the biometric sensor of Khan (‘705, col.2, lines 31-34) with teaching of Garrett for NFC card emulation—enables NFC-enabled devices such as smartphones to act like smart cards, allowing users to perform transactions such as payment or ticketing (‘070, [0004]) for biometric authentication the user before the payment applet can conduct the NFC financial transaction (‘705, col.11, lines 63-66).
Claim 33 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
31. Claims 4, 6, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200286070A1 to Garrett in view of US10740746B2 to Boivie and US20150371234A1 to Huang et al.
32. As per claim 4:
Neither Garrett, nor Boivie disclose, however, Huang et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The method according to claim 1 wherein the primary payment signal includes data representative of an authentication token ([0009], [0056], [0069] discloses that the dynamic CVV is a cryptographic authentication token included in the modified track data (the payment signal) and it is dynamically generated using a secret key and time-stamp, serving as a one-time-use authentication token that verifies the transaction is authentic)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a terminal comprising the wireless network circuit includes a Bluetooth circuit that is configured to establish a Bluetooth link with the accessory device, encrypt the NFC encrypted transaction data to output combined Bluetooth+NFC encrypted transaction data of Boivie (‘746, col.1, lines 51-58) and the devices for converting static card data (for example, the CVV1 or CVV2) into dynamic cryptograms that can only be used one time of Huang et al. (‘234, [0009]) with teaching of Garrett for NFC card emulation—enables NFC-enabled devices such as smartphones to act like smart cards, allowing users to perform transactions such as payment or ticketing (‘070, [0004]) for providing a dynamic CVV that was generated using a secret key and time-stamp and serving as a one-time-use authentication token (‘234, [0069]).
Claim 34 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
33. As per claim 6:
Neither Garrett, nor Boivie disclose, however, Huang et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The method according to claim 1 wherein the primary payment signal includes data representative of one or more of: (i) a dynamic cryptogram; (ii) a Device Account Number (DAN); (iii) a Dynamic Card Verification Value (CVV) ([0009]-[0010], [0069] discloses the dynamic cryptograms and dynamic CVV, the dCVV is generated using a secret key, PAN, timestamps, and counter values)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a terminal comprising the wireless network circuit includes a Bluetooth circuit that is configured to establish a Bluetooth link with the accessory device, encrypt the NFC encrypted transaction data to output combined Bluetooth+NFC encrypted transaction data of Boivie (‘746, col.1, lines 51-58) and the devices for converting static card data (for example, the CVV1 or CVV2) into dynamic cryptograms that can only be used one time of Huang et al. (‘234, [0009]) with teaching of Garrett for NFC card emulation—enables NFC-enabled devices such as smartphones to act like smart cards, allowing users to perform transactions such as payment or ticketing (‘070, [0004]) for providing a dynamic cryptogram which can be called a dynamic-CVV (dCVV) is used to secure card payments (‘234, [0010]).
Claim 36 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
34. Claims 5 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200286070A1 to Garrett in view of US10740746B2 to Boivie and US20170046691A1 to Tierney et al.
35. As per claim 5:
Neither Garrett, nor Boivie disclose, however, Tierney et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The method according to claim 1 wherein the primary payment signal includes data representative of an authentication token in the form of a Device Account Number (DAN) which uniquely is: (i) unique to the mobile device; and (ii) reconcilable by a remote system to a defined payment account identifier ([abstract] discloses that the device primary account number (DPAN) is functionally equivalent to the claimed Device Account Number (DAN), it is unique to the specific payment device, and it is reconcilable with the user’s payment account (FPAN) by the payment network via the FSP mapping algorithm)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a terminal comprising the wireless network circuit includes a Bluetooth circuit that is configured to establish a Bluetooth link with the accessory device, encrypt the NFC encrypted transaction data to output combined Bluetooth+NFC encrypted transaction data of Boivie (‘746, col.1, lines 51-58) and method comprising a payment terminal that receives a primary device transaction request comprising a funding primary account number (FPAN) of a funding source of Tierney et al. (‘691, [0009]) with teaching of Garrett for NFC card emulation—enables NFC-enabled devices such as smartphones to act like smart cards, allowing users to perform transactions such as payment or ticketing (‘070, [0004]) for providing device primary account number is functionally equivalent to the claimed Device Account Number and it is unique to the specific payment device, and it is reconcilable with the user’s payment account (‘691, abstract).
Claim 35 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC § 101
36. Applicant’s arguments toward 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is not persuasive. Amended independent claim 1 do not have additional elements that could lead to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
37. Applicant is of the opinion that the amended claim 1 is not directed to a business method and recites an abstract idea, “but a specific hybrid wireless communications architecture that off-loads NFC transmission from the mobile device to external hardware, with explicit protocol conversion between different wireless interfaces”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims as a whole directed to performing a payment transaction which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity is similar to commercial activities”.
38. Applicant is of the opinion that “the amended claims clearly integrate any such idea into a practical application”, lists claim 1 limitations “receiving … a primary payment signal…; processing … the received primary payment signal… and transmitting … the secondary payment signal…” and concludes that “These limitations tie any putative abstract concept of ‘payment’ to a particular technological implementation”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. According to MPEP 2106.04(d) II examiner requires to: “… (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…”.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “a contactless payment”, “a mobile device”, “a networked payment terminal”, “a contactless manner”, “Near Field Communications (NFC) technology”, “a mobile device having an NFC chipset”, “a further wireless communications interface”, “NFC-based contactless communication”, “NFC”, “NFC transmission hardware of an external device”, and “NFC-formatted payment signals” used as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Performing the steps, operations, or actions by using the mobile device to communicate payment information over a further wireless interface with an external device, performing EMV/NFC-specific formatting and secure data conversion, and using the external device’s own NFC transmission hardware to interact with standard EMV-compliant terminals does not integrate the judicial exception under a practical application because it is merely the use of the computer as an implementation tool for the abstract idea.
The purported improvements are improvements in ineligible subject matter, i.e., methods of performing financial transactions between customers of different financial institutions. Here, the additional elements recited by the claim generally link the use of the abstract idea, even if it is conceivably an improved abstract idea, to a particular technological environment or field of use; and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
39. Applicant is also of the opinion that “off-loading of NFC transmission to an external device that serves as a protocol bridge and EMV/NFC formatter is not the standard EMV/NFC architecture. It is a specific, technical adaptation designed to address OS/hardware-level NFC transmit restrictions on contemporary mobile devices”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for the reasons already discussed above – the additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. As per the identification of the “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the rejection properly identifies the elements which are recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, including a mobile device, a networked payment terminal, a contactless manner, Near Field Communications technology, a mobile device having an NFC chipset, a further wireless communications interface, NFC-based contactless communication, NFC transmission hardware of an external device, and NFC-formatted payment signals. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the “additional elements” have been identified and the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Under Step 2B, the additional elements have been evaluated and do not amount to “significantly more”. Note that Revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. The identification of the additional elements in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two is carried over as well as the conclusion from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f), and (h).
The claims are not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
40. Rejection of claim 1 due to amendments of claim is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103
41. Applicant argues that prior art references Kannappan and Rao do not teach, suggest, or otherwise provide amended claims 1 and dependent claims 2-10 limitations.
Applicant arguments are no longer applicable because they are moot in light of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
42. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20210012322A1 – Manchanda et al. – Discloses methods, systems and computer program products for implementing a contactless payment card based payment transaction wherein establishing a contactless communication protocol based data channel with a contactless payment card through a processor implemented contactless communication enabled device.
US20150127553A1 – Sundaram et al. – Discloses an intelligent payment card and a method for performing a financial transaction using the payment card wherein the payment card is activated when a primary user successfully authenticates himself by the way of providing valid finger print(s) to the biometric sensor of the payment card.
43. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
44. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
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 at 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 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.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights