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 .
Status of the Claims
2. Applicant filed the Request for Continued Examination on 06/02/2026. Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 14-17 are amended. Claims 3-9, 13, and 18-20 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 10, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “a. a determination…; b. a determination…; c. a determination…; d. a determination….”. However, there are no amendments are shown from previous claim limitations filed on 11/29/2025 “i. a determination…; ii. a determination…; iii. a determination…; iv. a determination….”.
Claim 12 recites “a. whether …; b. whether …; c. whether …; d. whether …; e. whether ….; f. whether …; g. whether …”. However, there are no amendments are shown from previous claim limitations filed on 11/29/2025 “i. whether …; ii. whether …; iii. whether …; iv. whether …; v. whether ….; vi. whether …; vii. whether …”.
Claim 16 recites “Person Identification Number (PIN)” wherein underlined word “Person” should be corrected into “Personal”.
Claim 16 recites “UPI” which is an 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, the first occurrence of “UPI” in the claims should be written out “UPI” (Unified payments Interface).
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
6. Claim 1 recites “enroll and create (204 a) … for performing the rule-based partially online and offline payment transactions”.
Claim 16 recites “enroll and create (204 a) … for performing the rule-based partially online and offline payment transactions”.
The specification (PGPub, para 19) recites “The expression ‘offline transaction’ hereinafter refers to rule-based transactions performed without any data connection or any communication with PSP servers”. However, the specification only provides examples with “data connections” – “…The transaction is thus initiated using an NFC channel between the electronic device 10 and the merchant terminal …” (PGPub, para 231) and see figure 7 (“Send Transaction for Online Authorization…”).
7. The underlined limitations should have the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed, (MPEP 2161.01 I).
8. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 because claim 17 inherits the deficiencies of claim 2 due to its dependency.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
11. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the details of a financial account” in paragraph starting with “i. receiving…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
12. Claim 2 recites “vi. transmitting (312), by the PSP tool (20), the generated key list request to the central electronic switch (106) via the PSP server (30) …”, and subsequently recites “vii. routing (314), by an electronic switch (106), the key list request …”.
Because “the central electronic switch” and “an electronic switch” are numerated with the same number “(106)”, it is not clear whether they are the same “switch” or different ones.
13. “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322. “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” MPEP 2173.02 I.
14. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 because claim 17 inherits the deficiencies of claim 2 due to its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 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.
17. In the instant case, claims 1 and 16 are directed “a method and system for facilitating rule-based partially online and offline payment transactions”.
18. Claim 1 recites “facilitating payment transactions”. Specifically, the claim recites (abstract ideas emphasized in bold) “executing (202), by a PSP tool (20) installed in an electronic device (10) associated with a registered user, a trusted application (104) in a secured storage area of the electronic device (10);
enabling (204), via a central electronic switch (106), the trusted application (104), the PSP tool (20), and the PSP server (30) to communicate with an authentication engine (108) and a plurality of banking system servers (40,50) to enable the registered user to:
enroll and create (204 a) a Unified payments Interface (UPI) lite account for performing the rule-based partially online and offline payment transactions;
load money (204 b) into the created UPI lite account from a registered financial account, wherein a value of money loaded into the UPI lite account is stored as a balance value in the secured storage area; and
utilize the balance value (204 c) for performing partially online and offline payment transactions without hitting the banking system servers (40,50)”.
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)).
19. 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 “one or more payment service provider (PSP) tools (20) installed on their electronic devices (10)”, “a PSP server (30)”, “a PSP tool (20) installed in an electronic device (10)”,” a trusted application (104) in a secured storage area of the electronic device (10)”, “a central electronic switch (106)”, “an authentication engine (108)”, “a plurality of banking system servers (40,50)”, “a Unified payments Interface (UPI)”, and “online” 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, and therefore, neither improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. With respect to “enabling (204), via a central electronic switch (106), the trusted application (104), the PSP tool (20), and the PSP server (30) to communicate with an authentication engine (108) and a plurality of banking system servers (40,50) to enable the registered user to”, the claim lacks details regarding what “enabling by a central electronic switch together with the trusted application, the PSP tool, and the PSP server to communicate with an authentication engine”, and also “a plurality of banking system servers enabling the registered user to perform functions (enrolling and creating, loading money, and utilizing the balance value)” comprises. Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “enabling” with mentioned above parts to communicate with the authentication engine”, and “enabling” the registered user to perform mentioned above functions are performed nor described how the functions are accomplished, the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to another technology or technical field, as it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). And, with respect to “load money (204 b) into the created UPI lite account from a registered financial account, wherein the value of money loaded into the UPI lite account is stored as a balance value in the secured storage area” is simply transmitting 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) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
20. 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 perform facilitating payment transactions 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.
21. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
22. Claim 16 also recites “facilitating payment transactions”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
23. 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 16 such as “one or more payment service provider (PSP) tools (20) installed on their electronic devices (10)”, “a PSP server (30)”, a trusted application (104)”, “a PSP tool (20) installed in an electronic device (10)”, “a secured storage area of the electronic device (10)”, “an authentication engine (108)”, “a central electronic switch (106)”, “a plurality of banking system servers (40,50)”, “a UPI”, and “online” 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, and therefore, neither improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. And, with respect to “load money (204 b) into the created UPI lite account from a registered financial account, wherein the value of money loaded into the UPI lite account is stored as a balance value in the secured storage area” is simply transmitting 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) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
24. 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 perform facilitating payment transactions 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.
25. Hence, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
26. The following dependent claims recent additional elements not addressed above:
claim 2 recites “a PSP tool interface”, “a private(Ps)-public(Pk) key pair”, “an electronic switch (106)”, and “a Digital Certificate(DC-Pk)”; and
claim 14 recites “a device” and “an issuer banking system server (40)”.
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 PSP tool interface, the private(Ps)-public(Pk) key pair, the electronic switch (106), the Digital Certificate(DC-Pk), the device, and the issuer banking system server (40).
Dependent claims 2, 10-12, 14-15, and 17 merely expand upon the abstract ideas of the independent claim and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Conclusion of 35 USC §101
27. 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.
28. 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
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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:
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.
33. Claims 1, 10-12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150278795A1 to Jiang et al. in view of US20190303910A1 to Asbe et al.
34. As per claim 1:
Jiang et al. discloses the following limitations:
A method (200) for facilitating registered users to perform rule-based partially online and offline payment transactions ([0001] “…methods and systems that allow users to perform payment transactions offline and without network access.”, [0088] “…the balance certificate comprises one or more rules limiting the amount of funds available for the payment transaction.”) each of the registered users having one or more payment service provider (PSP) tools (20) installed on their electronic devices (10) ([0023] “a user associated with a device must install an application and/or make a feature selection to obtain the benefits of the techniques described herein.”, [0037] “…the application 115 may be one or more of …a payment application, a digital wallet application…”)
executing (202), by a PSP tool (20) installed in an electronic device (10) associated with a registered user, a trusted application (104) in a secured storage area of the electronic device (10) ([0037] “…the user device 110 may comprise a secure element …which can be embedded within a fixed chip on the device 110, or be realized as a secure compartment of a security-enhanced operating system…The secure element may comprise one or more applications 115 running thereon that perform the functionality described herein.”)
enroll and create (204 a) a Unified payments Interface (UPI) lite account for performing the rule-based partially online and offline payment transactions ([0056] “… the user is prompted to create an account management system 130 account …the account management system 130 account is a digital wallet account maintained by the account management system 130 or a third party system…”)
load money (204 b) into the created UPI lite account from a registered financial account, wherein a value of money loaded into the UPI lite account is stored as a balance value in the secured storage area ([0004] “…requests a deposit of funds into a user account maintained by an account management system…”, [0063] “…funds are electronically transferred from a financial account to the user’s account management system 130 account.”, [0004] “…creates and signs a balance certificate, and transmits the signed balance certificate to the user device.”, [0040] “…the data storage unit 119 may be implemented in a secure element or other secure memory…on the user device 110…”)
utilize the balance value (204 c) for performing partially online and offline payment transactions without hitting the banking system servers (40,50) ([0001] “…methods and systems that allow users to perform payment transactions offline and without network access.”, [0005] “…the user device generates a signed withdrawal record for a payment amount. The signed withdrawal record and the signed balance certificate are transmitted to the merchant device, where the merchant device…verifies the signed balance to confirm the availability of the funds to complete the offline payment transaction…”)
Jiang et al. does not disclose, however, Asbe et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
each PSP tool (20) hosted by a PSP server (30) ([claim 1] “… each PSPA tool (1008) associated with and hosted by a PSPS server (1004 c) of a PSPS (1004) registered with said EPS (1000)…”), the registered users having a financial account linked with a unique multi-character Personal Identification Number (PIN) and a global identifier ([0054] “Registering for mobile banking and generating a UPI PIN for transactions…”, [0069] “If the address has global identifiers (for example, Mobile number, unique ID, account number, etc.)…”, [0059] “…the user registers to at least one bank with account details like user account name, account number, Aadhaar number, IFSC code…”)
enabling (204), via a central electronic switch (106), the trusted application (104), the PSP tool (20), and the PSP server (30) to communicate with an authentication engine (108) and a plurality of banking system servers (40,50) configured to enable the registered user to ([0051] “…the UPI (100) has a transaction server, an authorization server, a UPI server, and a settlement server…”, [0062] “… The UPI (100) uses the bank details to contact the remitter bank (110) … and then contact the beneficiary bank (112)…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electronic payment system for facilitating payment transactions between a plurality of users of Asbe et al. (‘910, [0026]) with the teaching of Jiang et al. for providing secure offline payments comprises a user device that requests a deposit of funds into a user account maintained by an account management system (‘795, [0004]) for hosting PSPA (e.g., PSP tool) by a PSPS server (e.g., PSP server), providing three sub-elements: a financial account, a unique multi-character PIN, and a global identifier (e.g., account number, a UPI PIN for transactions, unique ID respectively), and routing communication by the UPI (e.g., the central switch) to an authorization server (e.g., authentication engine) and a plurality of banks (‘910, [0051], [0054], [0059], [0062], [0069], [claim 1]).
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
35. As per claim 10:
Jiang et al. discloses the following limitations:
d. a determination as to whether or not one or more transaction parameters satisfy one or more pre-defined criteria ([0111] “…verifies the availability of funds to complete the offline payment transaction…”, [0088] “…comprises one or more rules limiting the amount of funds available…”)
Because claim recites “a plurality of pre-defined checks includes one or more of the following” it is enough to disclose only one limitation.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 10.
36. As per claim 11:
Jiang et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the transaction parameters are selected from the group consisting of the balance value, a count of the partially online transactions, a count of offline transactions, a transaction amount associated with the partially online transaction, a transaction amount associated with the offline transaction, a total amount associated with the partially online transactions, and a total amount associated with the offline transactions ([0074] “…calculates a balance of funds in the user…”, [0017] “…offline payment transaction under X dollars…”, [0088] “…limited in a number of offline purchase transactions…”, [0018] “…a selected portion of the funds in the user…”)
37. As per claim 12:
Jiang et al. discloses the following limitations:
b. whether the transaction amount is less than or equal to a maximum value of the transaction amount for an offline transaction ([0017] “…offline payment transaction under X dollars…”)
c. whether the transaction amount is less than or equal to the balance value in the UPI lite account ([0111] “…verifies the availability of funds to complete the offline payment transaction…”)
e. whether a count of the offline transaction is less than a pre-defined offline transaction count limit ([0088] “…limited in a number of offline purchase transactions…”)
f. whether the count of the offline transaction is less than or equal to a maximum number of offline consecutive transactions that are allowed ([0088] “…limited in a number of offline purchase transactions…”)
g. whether a total amount of offline transactions is less than or equal to a pre-defined maximum offline transaction amount limit ([0086] “…amount of funds available for an offline payment transaction based on the one or more rules for locking funds…”)
Because claim recites “wherein the determination as to whether or not one or more transaction parameters satisfy the one or more pre-defined criteria include:” it is not necessarily to disclose all limitation.
38. As per claim 14:
Jiang et al. discloses the following limitations:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the trusted application is configured to bind to a device based on parameters including an application identifier, a device identifier of the registered user, mobile number of the registered user, Indian Financial System Code (IFSC) of an issuer banking system server (40), and a financial account number ([0058] “…the account certificate 112 comprises an identity of the user and/or user device 110 that corresponds to the user…”, [0056] “…name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and information for one or more registered financial card accounts…”)
39. Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150278795A1 to Jiang et al. in view of US20190303910A1 to Asbe et al. and US20170357967A1 to Sykora et al.
40. As per claim 2:
Jiang et al. discloses the following limitations:
receiving (302), by the PSP tool (20), a service enablement command from the registered user via the PSP tool interface, the service enablement command comprising the details of a financial account to be enabled for performing partially online and offline transactions ([0048] “…the user enables an application 115 on the user device 110 and/or indicates a desire to perform an offline financial transaction…”, [0056] “…information for one or more registered financial card accounts, including bank account debit cards, credit cards…”)
viii. opening (316), by the authentication engine (108), the UPI lite account for the registered user by generating a Digital Certificate(DC-Pk) using the public key and updating a service enablement record with a unique lite account number, wherein the Digital Certificate(DC-Pk) and the public key are stored by the authentication engine (108) for authenticating future partially online or offline transactions initiated from the electronic device (10) ([0056] “…the user is prompted to create an account management system 130 account…”, [0058] “…the account management system 130 creates an account certificate…”, [0059] “…the account certificate 112 comprises an account certificate public key 112 a…”, [0044] “…the account management system 130 comprises the account certificate public key 112 a and can verify the identity of the user device 110 and/or user’s account management system 130 account using the account certificate public key 112 a…”)
Jiang et al. does not disclose, however, Asbe et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
vi. transmitting (312), by the PSP tool (20), the generated key list request to the central electronic switch (106) via the PSP server (30) associated with the PSP tool (20) ([0047] “…Each PSPA tool (1008) facilitates generation and receipt of transactional data signals relating to payment requests from said registered users…”, [0067] “…The payee’s PSPS (106) sends the Collect request to the UPI (100) …”)
vii. routing (314), by an electronic switch (106), the key list request received from the PSP server (30) to the authentication engine (108) ([0051] “…the UPI (100) has a transaction server, an authorization server, a UPI server, and a settlement server… the authorization server authorizes registered users…”)
x. communicating (320), by the authentication engine (108), the generated key list success response to the PSP tool (20) via the electronic switch (106) and the PSP server (30) to notify the registered user about service enablement success for the financial account ([0062] “…the UPI (100) sends transaction success information, to PSPA tools of the payee (step 9 a, 9 b, and 10)…”, [0083] “Step 318—The payee’s PSPS (106) notifies the payee.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electronic payment system for facilitating payment transactions between a plurality of users of Asbe et al. (‘910, [0026]) with the teaching of Jiang et al. for providing secure offline payments comprises a user device that requests a deposit of funds into a user account maintained by an account management system (‘795, [0004]) for facilitating generation and receipt of transactional data signals related to payment requests from said registered users and sending the request to the UPI, authorizing the registered users, and notifying the payee of successful payment information (‘910, [0047], [0051], [0062], [0067], [0083]).
Neither Jiang et al. nor Asbe et al. disclose, however, Sykora et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
ii. generating (304), by the PSP tool (20), a request for fetching public key upon receiving the service enablement command and sending the generated public key fetching request to the trusted application (104) ([0029] “…payment application 122 may issue a key request 143 to SEP 114 to generate a public key pair to be registered with payment system 140…”)
iii. generating (306), by the trusted application (104), a private(Ps)-public(Pk) key pair within the secured storage area of the electronic device (10) upon receiving the generated public key fetching request from the PSP tool (20) ([0029] “…In response to receiving a request 143, SEP 114 may generate the key pair and return the public key 144 of the pair…”, [0048] “Key storage 560 is a local memory (i.e., internal memory) configured to store keys…”)
iv. sending (308), by the trusted application (104), the public key from the generated private-public key pair to the PSP tool (20) ([0029] “…In response to receiving a request 143, SEP 114 may generate the key pair and return the public key 144 of the pair…”)
v. generating (310), by the PSP tool (20), a key list request upon receiving the public key, the key list request comprising the public key ([0030] “After receiving a public key 144 and a token 142, application 122 may issue a registration request 145 to payment system 140 in order to register the public key pair generated by SEP 114… request 145 includes authenticated token 142 and public key 144…”)
ix. generating (318), by the authentication engine (108), a key list success response upon successfully opening the UPI lite account and storing the public key ([0030] “…In response to verifying the information in a request 145, payment system 140 may provide a corresponding registered key token 146.”, [0031] “Register key token 146, in one embodiment, indicates that a particular public key pair has been registered…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electronic payment system for facilitating payment transactions between a plurality of users of Asbe et al. (‘910, [0026]) and the computing device that generates a public key pair usable to authenticate a user of the computing device of Sykora et al. (‘967, [0004]) with the teaching of Jiang et al. for providing secure offline payments comprises a user device that requests a deposit of funds into a user account maintained by an account management system (‘795, [0004]) for issuing a key request to a secure processor to generate a public key pair, in response to request generating by the secure processor the key pair and returning the public key to a local memory, issuing a registration request in order to register the public key pair generated by secure processor and confirming registration of public key pair (‘967, [0029], [0030], [0031], [0048]).
41. As per claim 15:
Neither Jiang et al. nor Asbe et al. disclose, however, Sykora et al., as shown, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the PSP tool (20) is configured to detect a tamper event wherein the tamper event includes at least one of a determination that the electronic device is rooted or a determination that key attestation is invalid, and is further configured to cause an automatic and immediate erasure of the information contained in the PSP tool (20) upon detection of the tamper event ([0039] “…Application 122 may then submit a cancellation request 404 to update the settings for the registered public key pair on system 140.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electronic payment system for facilitating payment transactions between a plurality of users of Asbe et al. (‘910, [0026]) and the computing device that generates a public key pair usable to authenticate a user of the computing device of Sykora et al. (‘967, [0004]) with the teaching of Jiang et al. for providing secure offline payments comprises a user device that requests a deposit of funds into a user account maintained by an account management system (‘795, [0004]) for submitting the cancellation request to update for the settings of public key pair on the payment system (‘967, [0039]).
Response to Arguments
42. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive. Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b)
43. Rejections of claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 under “Lack of antecedent basis” and “Unclear scope” due to claims amendments are withdrawn.
Conclusion
44. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20160042344A1 – Thimmana et al. – Discloses system and method for facilitating online and offline financial transactions using the digital wallets wherein receiving a request of a user by a wallet service providing platform for creating a primary digital wallet, determining the authenticity of the credentials provided by the user for associating the financial account of the user.
US20130024383A1 to Kannappan – Discloses methods, systems, and apparatuses for securely communicating issuer updates, upgrades, and allowing configuration of payment-related applications on a mobile communication device using a mobile security application, wherein a method of using a mobile communication device comprising a mobile security application, a key associated with the mobile security application.
US20190130386A1 – Bhat et al. – Discloses a method for an offline payment request to a user device when the merchant computing device is disconnected from a payment server, wherein the offline payment request is provided via local communications between the user device and the merchant computing device.
US20190122202A1 – Sun – Discloses a method that provides techniques for offline payments, wherein the method includes: receiving an offline payment request for an offline payment through a target payment application, the offline payment being made by a user registered with the target payment application; receiving an identity authentication identifier (ID) of the user.
45. 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
Prosecution Insights