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 1, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 16 recite “PIN” 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 “PIN” in the claims should be written out “PIN” (Personal Identification Number).
Claim 14 recites “IFSC” which is also an abbreviation, however, the specification does not does not describe what “IFSC” is and the Applicant should clarify the meaning of IFSC.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant filed the amendment on 11/19/2025. Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 are pending. Claims 1-2, 10, 14, and 16-17 are amended. Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a)
4. Applicant’s arguments toward the rejections of claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 are persuasive, rejections under “Lack of Algorithm” are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b)
5. Rejections of claims 2, 10, and 17 under “Lack of antecedent basis” due to claims amendments are withdrawn, however, the rejection related to claim 2 limitation “the Digital-certificate(Pk)” stands.
Applicant’s argument toward to rejection of claim 16 is persuasive, rejection under “Means Plus Function” is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument toward to rejection of claim 15 is persuasive, rejection under “Relative Term” is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments towards to rejections of claims 1 and 16 is persuasive, rejections under “Unclear scope” are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
6. Rejections of claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 due to claims amendments are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-17 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.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
9. Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “the value of money” in paragraph starting with “load money …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “the partially online and offline payment transactions” in paragraph starting with “utilize the balance value …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
10. Claim 2 recites the limitations “the secure storage area” and “the public key fetching request” in paragraph starting with “iii. generating …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests, perhaps the applicant was referring to “the secured storage area” and “the generated public key fetching request”.
11. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the electronic switch” in paragraph starting with “vii. routing …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
12. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the Digital-certificate(Pk)” in paragraph starting with “viii. opening …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
13. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the key list success response” in paragraph starting with “x. communicating …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests, perhaps the applicant was referring to “the generated key list success response”.
14. Claim 2 recites the limitations “the service enablement success” and “the respective financial account” in paragraph starting with “x. communicating …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
15. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the secure storage area” in paragraph starting with “ii. determination …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner suggests, perhaps the applicant was referring to “the secured storage area”.
16. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the key attestation” in paragraph starting with “iii. determination …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
17. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the transaction amount”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
18. Claim 14 recites the limitations “the parameters”, “the issuer banking system server”, and “the financial account number”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
19. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the automatic and immediate erasure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
20. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the key attestation” in paragraph starting with 3rd “a determination …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Unclear scope
21. “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.
22. Claim 15 recites “wherein the PSP tool (20) is configured to detect a tamper event and … cause the automatic and immediate erasure of the information contained in the PSP tool (20) upon detection of the tamper event”.
Applicant’s Specification (PGPub), (paras 131 and 280) merely mimics the claim limitations, the specification does not describe what “a tamper event” is or how “the tamper event” is detected.
23. Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because claim 12 inherits the deficiencies of claim 1 due to its dependency.
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
US20070168260A1 – Cunescu et al. – Discloses a method for updating an offline parameter of a payment device having an online-capable application and a primarily offline application wherein the offline parameter can be a counter reflective of an offline spending balance.
US20140122197A1 – Cheung et al. – Discloses systems and methods for providing online offers for rewards that can be tracked to offline transactions for redemption to protect sensitive consumer information, payment processing details such as credit card numbers and other authorizing data are redirected through a secure network to payment processing platforms.
US10255596B2 – Cowen – Discloses a system for carrying out an initial top-up of a balance of a pre-paid payment card wherein the prepaid payment card is configured for use in an infrastructure in accordance with a payment specification requiring different behavior for normal transactions in the infrastructure versus that required for topping-up of the balance.
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.
25. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
26. 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 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights