DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 22-23, 29-30, 32-33, 38-39 filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21, 25, 31, 37 are amended. New claims 41-48 are added.
Claims 21, 24-28, 31, 34-37, 40-48 are pending. Claims 21, 24-28, 31, 34-37, 40-48 have been examined.
Claim Objection
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 46, “The distributed data transfer system of claim 31, wherein the reader access code, received b 24-28, 4 l-43y the first server, is retrieved, by the second server, from a reader database, wherein the reader database stores a plurality of reader access codes associated with a plurality of reader devices disposed at one or more locations” should be “The distributed data transfer system of claim 31, wherein the reader access code, received b
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – Double Patenting
Regarding applicant’s remark about traversing this rejection and holding this reject in abeyance until all other rejections have been withdrawn, Examiner notes and the nonstatutory double patenting rejections are provided in later section.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims 21 and 31 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101; therefore, the previous rejections on the independent claims 21 and 31 are withdrawn.
However, applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 38 have not overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Specifically, the amended limitations of claim 38, “retrieving, responsive to an access request transaction… an identifier of the reader device based on the access request transaction data packet;” “transmitting… one or more authentication credentials and a data [] comprising a transaction identifier and an identifier of the contactless card…;” “receiving a reader access code… wherein the reader access code is transmitted… upon authenticating based on the one or more authentication credentials;” and “transmitting, in response to an inquiry …the reader access code to authorize an access request associated with the access request transaction,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of transaction processing because this describes a process of retrieving an identifier, providing authentication credentials, receiving and sending access code to authorize an access request and is a commercial interactions falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. “a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for execution by a server,” “the contactless device,” “the read device,” “a reader database,” “the first server,” “the second server,” “a data packet,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These elements individually and in combination do not integrate the exception into the practical application because they merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and do not provide improvement to the functioning of a computer or improvement to other technology or technical field of blockchain. Therefore, the elements of the amended claim, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 21, 24-28, 31, 38 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b); therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendments to claim 37 raise new 112(b) rejections as stated in later section.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims 21 and 31 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103; therefore, the previous rejections on the independent claims 21 and 31 are withdrawn.
However, applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 38 have not overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103. The rejections of the amended claim 38 and corresponding dependent claims (claims 40, 47-48) are maintained and described in the later section.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 24-28, 31, 34-37, 40-48 are rejected are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,928,667B2 (“ ‘667 patent”).
Claim 21, 31, 37 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 11 of the ‘667 patent recites a method comprising:
receiving, by a first server, a transaction initiated by the contactless card, wherein the transaction corresponds to an access request;
retrieving, by the first server responsive to the transaction, an identifier of a second server from a merchant database based on the transaction, wherein the second server stores the one or more merchant-provided access codes;
assembling, by the first server, a data packet comprising an identifier of the contactless card, and a transaction identifier associated with the transaction;
transmitting the data packet, by the first server via an application programming interface (API) call, to the second server;
in response to receiving, by the second server via the API call, the data packet:
retrieving, by the second server, an identifier of a reader device from a reader database based on the received data packet;
generating, by the second server, an authorization response, wherein the authorization response comprises a reader access code, and the identifier of the contactless card, wherein the reader access code is one of the merchant-provided access codes;
transmitting, by the second server, the authorization response to the reader device based on the retrieved identifier of the reader device;
transmitting, by the second server, the reader access code to the first server; and
upon receiving the reader access code, transmitting, by the first server, the reader access code to the contactless card, wherein the contactless card transmits the reader access code to the reader device to authorize the access request associated with the transaction.
Claim 11 of the ‘667 patent differs since claim 11 of the ‘667 patent further recites additional claim limitations, “assembling, by the first server, a data packet”, “an application programming interface (API) call”, “in response to receiving, by the second server via the API call, the data packet: retrieving, by the second server, an identifier of a reader device from a reader database based on the received data packet; generating, by the second server, an authorization response, wherein the authorization response comprises a reader access code, and the identifier of the contactless card, wherein the reader access code is one of the merchant-provided access codes; transmitting, by the second server, the authorization response to the reader device based on the retrieved identifier of the reader device; transmitting, by the second server, the reader access code to the first server”.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 11 of the ‘667 patent by removing the limitations directed to the claimed steps (i.e. ‘assembling’) performed by the first server, application programming interface (API) call, and the limitations directed to the claimed steps (i.e. ‘retrieving,’ ‘generating,’ ‘transmitting,’ ‘transmitting’) performed by the second server since the claim of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘667 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 31 and 37 of the present application is also rejected on the same basis as it recites similar language as claim 21 of the present application.
Claim 24 of the present application
Claim 11 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 24 of the present application.
Claim 25 of the present application
Claim 5 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 25 of the present application.
Claim 26 of the present application
Claim 6 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 26 of the present application.
Claim 28 of the present application
Claim 15 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 28 of the present application.
Claims 34 and 40 of the present application
Claim 12 of the ‘667 patent reads on claims 34 and 40 of the present application.
Claim 35 of the present application
Claim 16 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 35 of the present application.
Claim 36 of the present application
Claim 13 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 36 of the present application.
Claim 41 of the present application
Claim 14 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 41 of the present application.
Claims 42 and 48 of the present application
Claim 11 of the ‘667 patent reads on claims 42 and 48 of the present application.
Claims 43 and 47 of the present application
Claim 16 of the ‘667 patent reads on claims 43 and 47 of the present application.
Claim 44 of the present application
Claim 3 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 44 of the present application.
Claim 45 of the present application
Claim 11 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 45 of the present application.
Claim 27 is rejected are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘667 patent as applied to claim 26 further in view of O’Neil, J. (US 2002/0069165A1 (“O’Neil”)).
Claim 27 of the present application
O’Neil discloses wherein the merchant database maps Internet Protocol (IP) addresses associated with the one or more servers with the one or more merchants. (¶¶14, 30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by the ‘667 patent, by including IP addresses of merchant devices in merchant database, as taught by O’Neal, for an efficient and secure transaction associated with services (O’Neil: ¶3).
Claims 21, 24-28, 31, 34-37, 40-48 are rejected are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,210,654B2 (“ ‘654 patent”) in view of the ‘667 patent.
Claim 21, 31, 37 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 15 of the ‘654 patent recites a method comprising:
receiving, by the first processor, a transaction;
responsive to the transaction, retrieve, by the first processor, an identifier of the second server from a merchant database;
assembling, by the first processor, a data packet comprising an access code, an application programming interface (API) call, and a transaction identifier; and
transmitting the data packet to the second server,
receiving, by the second processor, the data packet;
responsive to receiving the data packet, retrieve by the second processor, an identifier of a reader device from a reader database;
generating, by the second processor, an authorization comprising a reader access code and an identifier of the contactless card;
transmitting, by the second processor, the authorization to the reader device; and
transmitting, by the second processor, the access code to the first server.
Claim 15 of the ‘654 patent differs since claim 15 of the ‘654 patent further recites additional claim limitations, “assembling, by the first server, a data packet”, “an application programming interface (API) call”, “receiving, by the second processor, the data packet; responsive to receiving the data packet, retrieve by the second processor, an identifier of a reader device from a reader database; generating, by the second processor, an authorization comprising a reader access code and an identifier of the contactless card; transmitting, by the second processor, the authorization to the reader device; and transmitting, by the second processor, the access code to the first server.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 15 of the ‘654 patent by removing the limitations directed to the claimed steps (i.e. ‘assembling’) performed by the first server, application programming interface (API) call, and the limitations directed to the claimed steps (i.e. ‘receiving,’ ‘retrieve,’ ‘generating,’ ‘transmitting,’ ‘transmitting’) performed by the second server since the claim of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘667 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Also, claim 15 of the ‘654 patent differs since it fails to recite transmitting, by the contactless card and in response to an inquiry from a reader device, the reader access code to the reader device to authorize an access request associated with the access request transaction. The ‘667 patent teaches transmitting, by the contactless card and in response to an inquiry from a reader device associated, the reader access code to the reader device to authorize an access request associated with the access request transaction. (claim 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of the ‘654 patent to incorporate the teachings of the contactless card transmitting the reader access code to the read device, as disclosed in the ‘667 patent, for eliminating manual steps required to activate contactless communication (‘667 patent: 1:47-48).
Claims 31 and 37 of the present application is also rejected on the same basis as it recites similar language as claim 21 of the present application.
Claim 24 of the present application
Claim 11 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 24 of the present application.
Claim 25 of the present application
Claim 5 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 25 of the present application.
Claim 26 of the present application
Claim 6 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 26 of the present application.
Claim 28 of the present application
Claim 15 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 28 of the present application.
Claims 34 and 40 of the present application
Claim 12 of the ‘667 patent reads on claims 34 and 40 of the present application.
Claim 35 of the present application
Claim 16 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 35 of the present application.
Claim 36 of the present application
Claim 13 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 36 of the present application.
Claim 41 of the present application
Claim 14 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 41 of the present application.
Claims 42 and 48 of the present application
Claim 11 of the ‘667 patent reads on claims 42 and 48 of the present application.
Claims 43 and 47 of the present application
Claim 16 of the ‘667 patent reads on claims 43 and 47 of the present application.
Claim 44 of the present application
Claim 3 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 44 of the present application.
Claim 45 of the present application
Claim 11 of the ‘667 patent reads on claim 45 of the present application.
Claim 27 is rejected are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the ‘654 patent in view of the ‘667 patent as applied to claim 26 further in view of O’Neil, J. (US 2002/0069165A1 (“O’Neil”)).
Claim 27 of the present application
O’Neil discloses wherein the merchant database maps Internet Protocol (IP) addresses associated with the one or more servers with the one or more merchants. (¶¶14, 30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by the ‘654 patent in view of the ‘667 patent, by including IP addresses of merchant devices in merchant database, as taught by O’Neal, for an efficient and secure transaction associated with services (O’Neil: ¶3).
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 37, 40, 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 37, 40, 47-48 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium (‘manufacture’). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 37
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of transaction processing. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
retrieving, responsive to an access request transaction between the contactless device and the reader device, from a reader database, an identifier of the reader device based on the access request transaction data packet;
transmitting, by the first server, one or more authentication credentials and a data packet comprising a transaction identifier and an identifier of the contactless card, to the second server;
receiving a reader access code from the second server, wherein the reader access code is transmitted by the second server upon authenticating the first server based on the one or more authentication credentials;
transmitting, the reader access code to the contactless device, the authorization response based on the identifier of the reader device; and
transmitting, in response to an inquiry from the reader device, the reader access code to authorize an access request associated with the access request transaction.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites a process of receiving card information from a merchant, looking up a merchant identifier, providing an authorization response to the merchant, which is a commercial interaction.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for execution by a server,” “the contactless device,” “the read device,” “a reader database,” “the first server,” “the second server,” “a data packet,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 40, 47-48
Claims 40, 47 and 48 each recite additional details of the reader access code. Therefore, the claims further recite the abstract idea of transaction processing. The claims do not introduce any mew additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
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.
Claims 37, 40, 47-48 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claim 37 recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for execution by a server, wherein, when executed, the instructions cause the server to perform operations comprising…transmitting…” The claim also recites “transmitting, by the first server…” Therefore, the claim is unclear whether the claimed operation of transmitting is performed by the server or by the first server.
Claim 37 recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for execution by a server, wherein, when executed, the instructions cause the server to perform operations comprising…wherein the reader access code is transmitted by the second server upon authenticating the first server…” The claim recites the claimed operations performed by the server. However, the ‘authenticating’ in the recitation ‘the reader access code is transmitted by the second server upon authenticating the first server’ can be read as performed by the server or being performed by the second server. Therefore, the claim is unclear whether the claimed operation of authenticating is performed by the server or by the second server.
Claim 37 recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for execution by a server, wherein, when executed, the instructions cause the server to perform operations comprising: …transmitting, in response to an inquiry from the reader device associated with the third-party merchant, to the reader device, the reader access code to authorize an access request associated with the access request transaction.” Paragraph [0045] of applicant’s specification (US 2024/0273512A1) describes in the example of FIG. 1, contactless device 201 transmits access code 213 in response to an inquiry 241 from reader device 233. However, the specification does not describe the server transmitting the reader access code to the reader device. Therefore, the claim is unclear because it is not in line with the specification
Claims 40, 47-48 are rejected as each depends upon claim 37..
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claim 37 recites “retrieve, responsive to an access request transaction between the contactless device and the reader device, from a reader database, an identifier of the reader device based on the access request transaction data packet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations, “the contactless device,” “the reader device,” and “the access request transaction data packet.”
Claim 37 recites “transmitting, by the first server, one or more authentication credentials and a data packet comprising a transaction identifier and an identifier of the contactless card, to the second server”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations, “the first server,” “the second server,” and “the contactless card.”
Claims 40, 47-48 are rejected as each depends upon claim 37.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 37, 40, 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wishne, J. (US 2018/0225900A1 (“Wishne”)) in view of Prakash et al. (US 10,558,969B2 (“Prakash”)).
Per Claim 37: Wishne discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for execution by a server, wherein, when executed, the instructions cause the server to perform operations comprising: (Fig. 4, item 500; ¶¶47)
retrieving, responsive to an access request transaction between the contactless device and the reader device, from a reader database, an identifier of the reader device based on the access request transaction data packet; (Fig. 4; ¶¶47, 61-63)
transmitting, by the first server, one or more authentication credentials and a data packet comprising a transaction identifier and [data], to the second server; (¶¶51, 60, 61)
receiving a reader access code from the second server (Fig. 4, items 500; ¶¶62), wherein the reader access code is transmitted by the second server upon authenticating the first server based on the one or more authentication credentials; (¶¶51, 60-62)
transmitting, the reader access code to the contactless device, the authorization response based on the identifier of the reader device, and (Fig. 4, items 500/100; ¶¶47-48, 40)
transmitting, in response to an inquiry from the reader device associated with the third-party merchant, to the reader device, the reader access code to authorize an access request associated with the access request transaction. (Fig. 4, items 500/200; ¶¶47-48, 40)
Wishne does not explicitly disclose an identifier of the contactless card.
Prakash discloses the identifier of the contactless card being included in the authorization response (Fig. 9; 23:12-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wishne to incorporate the teachings of identifier data of contactless card included in authorization response, as disclosed in Prakash, to increase security of a transaction (Prakash: 6:6-7).
Additionally, note the recitation, "…a data packet comprising a transaction identifier and an identifier of the contactless card…", recites non-functional descriptive material language. The limitation describes characteristics (‘a transaction identifier and an identifier of the contactless card’) of the ‘data packet’ and is non-functional because the claimed method does not use or process the characteristics to carry out any steps or functions. Therefore, this descriptive material language will not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Furthermore, the expressions of "wherein the reader access code is transmitted by the second server upon authenticating the first server based on the one or more authentication credentials” do not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the positively recited steps nor does the expression affect the claimed structures.
Per Claims 40: Wishne in view of Prakash all the limitations of claim 37.
Wishne discloses wherein the reader access code is associated with a predetermined period of time. (¶¶52, 76)
Per Claim 47: Wishne in view of Prakash all the limitations of claim 37.
Wishne discloses wherein the reader access code is associated with a predetermined number of transmissions. (¶¶52, 77)
Per Claim 48: Wishne in view of Prakash all the limitations of claim 37.
Wishne discloses wherein the reader access code is associated with the identifier of the reader device. (¶¶52)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wall (US 2022/0108293A1) teaches a method for reader device registration, activation, and use.
Graves (US 7,578,439B2) teaches a method for authorizing stored value card transactions.
Kumnick (US 8,924,297B2) teaches a method for passing a plurality of communications directly from a merchant to a payment processing network. A first communication may include payment information in an authorization request, while a second transaction may include non-payment transaction data. The communications may be linked with a transaction identifier.
Perry (US 9,129,281B2) teaches a method including receiving transaction data in an authorization request message from an access device, where the transaction data is associated with a merchant and a transaction location. The method also includes analyzing the transaction data to determine if a location database comprises location data corresponding to the merchant associated with the transaction data, and adding the transaction location and information regarding the access device to the location database.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM 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, JOHN W HAYES can be reached at (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697