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
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 11-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 include the following elements: "deleting the reference authentication data element from the in-vehicle computing device”. These elements appear to have no support in the original abstract, specification or drawings. The closest specification language is found in paragraph 55, which states “None of the devices, except for the cardholder's mobile device, is required to store this confidential data constantly, e.g., before or after the payment transaction is performed”. There is no specific deletion step being explicitly claimed by the applicant in the new amendment. Introduction of new matter is not allowed in amendments to the Claims (MPEP 2163.06).
Claims 3-4, 7-9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected based claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 11-20 are directed to a system or method, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES”).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method claim 12 and system claim 20. Claim 1 recites the limitations of conducting transactions by requesting payment, authenticating user (by matching user’s input to previously stored input), and settling the transaction.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Acknowledging proximity of user’s vehicle device POS device terminal by either (a) determining GPS position of vehicle to the POS and (POS) acknowledging the proximity, or (b) establishing wireless connection and determining the radio signal parameter to the POS and (POS) acknowledging the proximity; requesting payment; request for a “reference authentication data element” (“reference authentication data element” = elements used for authentication, e.g., stored login code, referenced biometric); transferring a “reference authentication data element”; authenticating an “input authentication data element”; determining a similarity metric value between “reference authentication data element” vs “input authentication data element”; based on similarity metric value, authorizing payment; deleting reference authentication data from the in-vehicle device after payment authorization; and input module is either (a) biometric capturing module, or (b) GUI for logging in, – specifically, the claim recites: “acknowledging a proximity of an in-vehicle computing device to a Point-Of-Sale (POS) terminal by at least one of (a) determining a geolocation of the in-vehicle computing device… estimating distance from the determined geolocation of the in-vehicle computing device to a known geolocation of the POS terminal; and acknowledging… the proximity of the in-vehicle computing device, based on the estimated distance; and (b) establishing a first wireless connection between the in-vehicle computing device and the POS terminal; determining a value of at least one radio signal parameter associated with the first wireless connection; and acknowledging… the proximity of the in-vehicle computing device, provided that the value of the at least one radio signal parameter surpasses a predefined threshold value thereof; transferring… a request to authorize the payment transaction, upon acknowledging the proximity; transferring… a request to receive a reference authentication data element, upon receiving the request to authorize the payment transaction; transferring… the reference authentication data element, in response to the request to receive the reference authentication data element; receiving… an input authentication data element, entered by the cardholder; determining… a similarity metric value, representing a degree of similarity between the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element; identifying… the cardholder, based on the similarity metric value, thereby authorizing the payment transaction; and deleting the reference authentication data element from the in-vehicle computing device after authorizing the payment transaction; wherein (i) the input module comprises a biometric data capturing module; and wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element represent biometric data of the cardholder; or (ii) the input module comprises a touchscreen configured to represent a virtual keyboard; and wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element comprise a numeric or alphanumeric code”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a system”, “a in-vehicle computing device”, “a Point-Of-Sale (POS) terminal”, “a mobile device”, “a non-transitory memory device”, “modules of instruction code”, “at least one processor”, “Global Positioning System (GPS)”, “an input module”, “a biometric data capturing module”, and “a touchscreen configured to represent a virtual keyboard”, in claim 20 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 12 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a system, a in-vehicle computing device, a Point-Of-Sale (POS) terminal, a mobile device, at least one processor, and Global Positioning System (GPS); a communication device such as a touchscreen configured to represent a virtual keyboard; a storage unit such as a biometric data capturing module; software module and algorithm such as modules of instruction code and an input module. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 12, and 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of wherein the biometric data capturing module comprises a camera; and wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element comprise an image of a cardholder’s face, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the biometric data capturing module” and “camera” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of wherein the biometric data capturing module comprises a fingerprint scanner; and wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element comprise a scan of a cardholder’s fingerprint, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the biometric data capturing module” and “fingerprint scanner” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of wherein the POS terminal comprises an antenna array and the at least one parameter of the first wireless connection is selected from a list consisting of: (i) signal strength; (ii) Angle of Arrival (AoA); (iii) Angle of Departure (AoD); and (iv) Time-of-Flight (ToF), which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the POS terminal” and “an antenna array”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of establishing a second wireless connection between the in-vehicle computing device and the POS terminal, provided that the proximity is acknowledged; wherein said transferring, from the POS terminal to the in-vehicle computing device, the request to authorize the payment transaction, is performed via the second wireless connection, and wherein the method further comprises: transferring, from the in-vehicle computing device to the, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the POS terminal” and “in-vehicle computing device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of the first wireless connection and/or the second wireless connection is performed via a wireless communication protocol selected from a list consisting of: (i) Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE); (ii) Ultra-wideband (UWB); (iii) Wi-Fi; (iv) RFID; and (v) NFC, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of wherein authorizing a payment transaction, based on the similarity metric value, comprises authorizing a payment transaction, provided that the similarity metric value surpasses a predefined similarity metric threshold value, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of transferring, from the POS terminal to the in-vehicle computing device, request to receive payment credentials of the cardholder; transferring, from the in-vehicle computing device to the POS terminal, payment credentials of the cardholder, in response to the request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder, provided that the payment transaction is authorized; and wherein settling the payment transaction is performed by the POS terminal, using the payment credentials of the cardholder, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the POS terminal” and “the in-vehicle computing device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of retransferring, from the in-vehicle computing device to the
mobile device, a request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder; transferring, from the mobile device to the in-vehicle computing device, the payment credentials of the cardholder, in response to the request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the mobile device” and “the in-vehicle computing device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of transferring, from the in-vehicle computing device to the mobile device, a request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder; transferring, from the mobile device to the in-vehicle computing device, the payment credentials of the cardholder, in response to the request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder; wherein settling the payment transaction is performed by the in-vehicle computing device, using the payment credentials of the cardholder, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the mobile device” and “the in-vehicle computing device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of transferring from the POS terminal to the in-vehicle computing device, a seller payment data element, comprising at least one of:(a) a payment credentials of a seller; (b) a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) link to a payment service of a seller; and wherein settling the payment transaction is further performed using the seller payment data element, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the POS terminal” and “the in-vehicle computing device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of providing, via a user interface (UI) of the in-vehicle computing device, UI selection data elements, corresponding to optional parameters to be selected by the cardholder; receiving, via the UI of the in-vehicle computing device, an input selection data element, entered by the cardholder, representing selection of at least one of said UI selection data elements; and wherein settling the payment transaction is further performed based on the input selection data element, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a user interface” and “the in-vehicle computing device” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of transferring, from the POS terminal to the in-vehicle computing device, an option selection data element, representing said optional parameters; and wherein providing, via the UI of the in-vehicle computing device, UI selection data elements, is performed based on the option selection data element, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the POS terminal”, “the in-vehicle computing device”, and “UI of the first computing device”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of the payment credentials of the cardholder or the payment credentials of the seller comprise at least one of: (a) a Primary Account Number (PAN) of the cardholder or the seller accordingly, (b) a payment token of the cardholder or the seller accordingly, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 11-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak (20230137137) in view of Ito (20080077359) and Troia (20190202399).
Regarding claim 1, Nowak discloses
a method of authorizing payment transactions, by at least one processor, the method comprising: acknowledging a proximity of an in-vehicle computing device to a Point-Of-Sale (POS) terminal
(“[0018] In certain implementations, a vehicle may be configured to recognize one or more authorized users by pairing a vehicle communication device associated with the vehicle, to one or more devices associated with the one or more authorized users. The vehicle may also be configured with an NFC tag disposed proximate the vehicle's fuel tank such that the vehicle may wirelessly receive a transaction request, via the NFC tag, from a third-party POS NFC reader positioned proximate a fuel pump”).
(“[0049] In block 304, the system (e.g., via vehicle communication system 110) may detect a first user device (e.g., user device 120) being paired (e.g., via Bluetooth™) with the vehicle communication device (e.g., an internal processor of the vehicle)… comes within a predetermined distance of the vehicle, the predetermined distance being a distance required to establish a Bluetooth™ connection”).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
by at least one of (a) determining a geolocation of the in- vehicle computing device via Global Positioning System (GPS); estimating distance from the determined geolocation of the in-vehicle computing device to a known geolocation of the POS terminal; and acknowledging, by the POS terminal, the proximity of the in-vehicle computing device, based on the estimated distance; and (b) establishing a first wireless connection between the in-vehicle computing device and the POS terminal; determining a value of at least one radio signal parameter associated with the first wireless connection; and acknowledging, by the POS terminal, the proximity of the in-vehicle computing device, provided that the value of the at least one radio signal parameter surpasses a predefined threshold value thereof
(“[0018] In certain implementations, a vehicle may be configured to recognize one or more authorized users by pairing a vehicle communication device associated with the vehicle, to one or more devices associated with the one or more authorized users. The vehicle may also be configured with an NFC tag disposed proximate the vehicle's fuel tank such that the vehicle may wirelessly receive a transaction request, via the NFC tag, from a third-party POS NFC reader positioned proximate a fuel pump”).
(“[0049] In block 304, the system (e.g., via vehicle communication system 110) may detect a first user device (e.g., user device 120) being paired (e.g., via Bluetooth™) with the vehicle communication device (e.g., an internal processor of the vehicle)... comes within a predetermined distance of the vehicle, the predetermined distance being a distance required to establish a Bluetooth™ connection”).
(“[0050] In some embodiments, in response to detecting the first user device being paired with the vehicle communication device via short-range communication, the system may be configured to determine, via a location tracking system (e.g., a Global Positioning System (GPS)) associated with the first user device, whether the first user device is within a predefined distance of the fuel pump”).
transferring, from the POS terminal to the in-vehicle computing device, a request to authorize the payment transaction, upon acknowledging the proximity
(“[0048] In block 302, the system (e.g., via vehicle communication system 110) may receive, via the NFC tag (e.g., NFC tag 112), a transaction request for a fuel transaction for the vehicle from a third-party POS NFC reader (e.g., NFC reader 132) positioned proximate a fuel pump... The NFC reader may be positioned at a fixed position on the fuel pump nozzle such that the NFC reader, connected to a merchant POS terminal at the fuel station, may transmit a request to conduct the fuel transaction”).
transferring, from the in-vehicle computing device to a mobile device associated with [[a ]]the cardholder, a request to receive [a reference authentication data element], upon receiving the request to authorize the payment transaction;
transferring, from the mobile device to the in-vehicle computing device, the reference authentication data element, in response to the request to receive the reference authentication data element;
(“[0018] The vehicle may be configured to retrieve account payment information associated with a first authorized user of the one or more authorized users based on detecting a first user device associated with that first authorized user, the first user device being within a predefined distance of the vehicle communication device. Such implementations may be utilized to reduce and/or eliminate the need for manual interactions when conducting fuel payment transactions. Additionally, some implementations may also take fraud mitigation action(s) to prevent unauthorized access to users' account payment information”).
(“[0035] Vehicle communication system 110 may be configured to receive payment account information associated with one or more authorized users, for example, via one or more user devices associated with the one or more authorized users… Vehicle communication system 110 may also be configured to transmit payment account information associated with one or more authorized users to merchant POS terminal 130 via NFC tag 112”).
receiving, via an input module of the in-vehicle computing device, an input authentication data element, entered by the cardholder
(“[0060] That is, upon the fuel nozzle being inserted into the vehicle fuel tank, as discussed above, the user may be prompted via a mobile payment application to authorize payment (e.g., via biometric information, a passcode, etc.) for the fuel transaction”).
[determining, by the in-vehicle computing device, a similarity metric value, representing a degree of similarity between the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element]
identifying, by the in-vehicle computing device, the cardholder, based on the similarity metric value, thereby authorizing the payment transaction; and
(“[0063] In block 312, the system (e.g., via vehicle communication system 110) may transmit, via the NFC tag, the first account payment information to the third-party POS NFC reader to complete the fuel transaction for the vehicle”).
(“[0068] The NFC tag may then transmit the credit card information, via the wireless connection, to the NFC reader such that the credit card information then gets transmitted from the fuel station POS terminal to a financial institution associated with the owner's credit card. The financial institution may then authorize the transaction”).
wherein (i) the input module comprises a biometric data capturing module; and wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element represent biometric data of the cardholder; or (ii) the input module comprises a touchscreen configured to represent a virtual keyboard; and wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element comprise a numeric or alphanumeric code.
(“[0059] The system may also be configured to transmit a prompt, for example via the owner's and/or spouse's mobile phone (e.g., via a mobile application, a text message, an email, etc.) or a digital screen disposed within the vehicle, to allow the owner and/or spouse to manually select which of their respective account payment information they wish to use for the upcoming transaction”).
(“[0060] the user may be prompted via a mobile payment application to authorize payment (e.g., via biometric information, a passcode, etc.) for the fuel transaction”).
Nowak does not disclose, however, Ito teaches
[a reference authentication data element]
[determining, by the in-vehicle computing device, a similarity metric value, representing a degree of similarity between the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element]
(The examiner notes that “similarity metric value” is not specifically quantified by the specification. The value can be any number as long as it is not larger than a threshold value (which is also not quantified). See specification paragraphs 22 and 106. Broadest reasonable interpretation could include a match. The examiner also notes that authentication by comparison generally involves a comparison of a new data input to a referenced data stored. However, to be comprehensive, the examiner searched for and presented below, prior art to established this point and its related elements. As such, the relevant prior art teaching are – (“[0008] A biometric authentication device according to a first aspect of the present invention includes biometric-authentication-data generating means for generating biometric authentication data from biometric data of a user, and authentication means for performing authentication of the biometric authentication data on the basis of reference biometric data of the user. The biometric authentication device further includes storage means for storing the reference biometric data and second reference biometric data (i.e. working reference biometric data) that is obtained by copying the reference biometric data, update-and-registration means for updating the second reference biometric data with the biometric authentication data and registering the updated second reference biometric data when the authentication means determines that authentication has been successfully completed, and re-registration request means for calculating a matching ratio of the reference biometric data and the updated and registered second reference biometric data and requesting the user to re-register the reference biometric data and the second reference biometric data when the matching ratio is equal to or lower than a predetermined value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nowak to include [a reference authentication data element] and [determining, by the in-vehicle computing device, a similarity metric value, representing a degree of similarity between the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element] as taught by Ito to have an authentication system with a refenced authentication data stored and ready to be used when there is an authentication occasion by using the refenced authentication data to compare to a recent data input. See [0009] A biometric authentication device… performing authentication of the biometric authentication data on the basis of reference biometric data of the user… storing the reference biometric data and second reference biometric data that is obtained by copying the reference biometric data… determines, on the basis of a first matching ratio of the biometric authentication data and the second reference biometric data, that authentication has been successfully completed and when a second matching ratio of biometric authentication data generated in the preceding authentication and the biometric authentication data is higher than the first matching ratio, the first and second matching ratios being calculated by the authentication means… the third matching ratio is equal to or lower than-a predetermined value.
Nowak also does not disclose, however, Troia teaches
[deleting the reference authentication data element from the in-vehicle computing device after authorizing the payment transaction]
First, the examiner notes that these elements are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) above. For purpose of compact prosecution, the relevant prior art would be – (“[0065] At block 203, after generating the authorization, prior user data is deleted from memory of the vehicle. At block 205, after the prior user data is deleted, a notification is received confirming that the vehicle has actually deleted the prior user data from the memory. In one example, user data 114 is deleted from memory 109 of FIG. 1 above”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nowak to include [deleting the reference authentication data element from the in-vehicle computing device after authorizing the payment transaction] as taught by Troia to delete data after the transaction is done to enhance privacy and data security. See [0009] For example, when an owner of a vehicle gives a vehicle to another person for operation, this other person is typically trusted by the owner. However, for a shared vehicle such as a rental vehicle, a new operator of the vehicle is not known by the owner. Thus, sharing of vehicles amongst unrelated users creates undesirable privacy and data security problems.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
wherein the biometric data capturing module comprises a camera;
(“[0023] User device 120 may include one or more of a mobile device, smart phone, tablet computer, laptop computer, smart wearable device, voice command device, other mobile computing device, or any other device capable of communicating with network 150 and/or vehicle communication system 110. Users of user device 120 may include individuals such as, for example, subscribers, clients, prospective clients, or customers of an entity associated with financial service provider system 140. According to some embodiments, user device 120 may include one or more of: an environmental sensor for obtaining audio or visual data (e.g., a microphone and/or digital camera), a geographic location sensor for determining the location of the device, an input/output (I/O) device such as a transceiver for sending and receiving data (e.g., via WiFi™, cellular communications, NFC, Bluetooth™, and the like), a display for displaying digital images, one or more processors, and a memory in communication with the one or more processors”).
Nowak does not disclose, however, Ito further discloses
wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element comprise an image of a cardholder's face
(“[0008] A biometric authentication device according to a first aspect of the present invention includes biometric-authentication-data generating means for generating biometric authentication data from biometric data of a user, and authentication means for performing authentication of the biometric authentication data on the basis of reference biometric data of the user. The biometric authentication device further includes storage means for storing the reference biometric data and second reference biometric data (i.e. working reference biometric data) that is obtained by copying the reference biometric data, update-and-registration means for updating the second reference biometric data with the biometric authentication data and registering the updated second reference biometric data when the authentication means determines that authentication has been successfully completed, and re-registration request means for calculating a matching ratio of the reference biometric data and the updated and registered second reference biometric data and requesting the user to re-register the reference biometric data and the second reference biometric data when the matching ratio is equal to or lower than a predetermined value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nowak to include wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element comprise an image of a cardholder's face as taught by Ito to have an authentication system with a refenced authentication data stored and ready to be used when there is an authentication occasion by using the refenced authentication data to compare to a recent data input. See [0009] A biometric authentication device… performing authentication of the biometric authentication data on the basis of reference biometric data of the user… storing the reference biometric data and second reference biometric data that is obtained by copying the reference biometric data… determines, on the basis of a first matching ratio of the biometric authentication data and the second reference biometric data, that authentication has been successfully completed and when a second matching ratio of biometric authentication data generated in the preceding authentication and the biometric authentication data is higher than the first matching ratio, the first and second matching ratios being calculated by the authentication means… the third matching ratio is equal to or lower than-a predetermined value.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak does not disclose, however, Ito further discloses
wherein the biometric data capturing module comprises a fingerprint scanner; and wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element comprise a scan of a cardholder's fingerprint
(“[0032] Embodiments according to the present invention will now be described with reference to the drawings. In the embodiments, a case will be described where biometric data of veins in a palm is used. Alternatively, biometric data of fingerprints, irises, or the like may be used”).
(“[0008] A biometric authentication device according to a first aspect of the present invention includes biometric-authentication-data generating means for generating biometric authentication data from biometric data of a user, and authentication means for performing authentication of the biometric authentication data on the basis of reference biometric data of the user. The biometric authentication device further includes storage means for storing the reference biometric data and second reference biometric data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nowak to include wherein the biometric data capturing module comprises a fingerprint scanner; and wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element comprise a scan of a cardholder's fingerprint as taught by Ito to have an authentication system with a refenced authentication data stored and ready to be used when there is an authentication occasion by using the refenced authentication data to compare to a recent data input. See [0009] A biometric authentication device… performing authentication of the biometric authentication data on the basis of reference biometric data of the user… storing the reference biometric data and second reference biometric data that is obtained by copying the reference biometric data… determines, on the basis of a first matching ratio of the biometric authentication data and the second reference biometric data, that authentication has been successfully completed and when a second matching ratio of biometric authentication data generated in the preceding authentication and the biometric authentication data is higher than the first matching ratio, the first and second matching ratios being calculated by the authentication means… the third matching ratio is equal to or lower than-a predetermined value.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
establishing a second wireless connection between the in-vehicle computing device and the POS terminal, provided that the proximity is acknowledged; wherein said transferring, from the POS terminal to the in-vehicle computing device, the request to authorize the payment transaction, is performed via the second wireless connection, and wherein the method further comprises: transferring, from the in-vehicle computing device to the POS terminal via the second wireless connection, an authorization confirmation data element, confirming that the payment transaction has been authorized
(“[0022] Vehicle communication system 110, as further described below with respect to FIG. 2, may be associated with a vehicle and configured to selectively pair, via a vehicle communication device, with one or more devices positioned within a predefined distance of the vehicle communication device to enable short-range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth™)”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
the first wireless connection and/or the second wireless connection is performed via a wireless communication protocol selected from a list consisting of: (i) Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE); (ii) Ultra-wideband (UWB); (iii) Wi-Fi; (iv) RFID; and (v) NFC
(“[0027] the network 150 may enable the communication(s) between the various systems, terminals, vehicle systems, and devices as depicted in FIG. 1. In some embodiments, network 150 may connect with the user device 120 using available channels, including but not limited to: radio-frequency identification (RFID), NFC, Bluetooth™, low-energy Bluetooth™ (BLE), WiFi™, ZigBee™, ambient backscatter communications (ABC) protocols, USB, Ethernet, or LAN”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak does not disclose, however, Ito further discloses
authorizing a payment transaction, based on the similarity metric value, comprises authorizing a payment transaction, provided that the similarity metric value surpasses a predefined similarity metric threshold value
(“[0008] A biometric authentication device… matching ratio of the reference biometric data and the updated and registered second reference biometric data and requesting the user to re-register the reference biometric data and the second reference biometric data when the matching ratio is equal to or lower than a predetermined value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nowak to include authorizing a payment transaction, based on the similarity metric value, comprises authorizing a payment transaction, provided that the similarity metric value surpasses a predefined similarity metric threshold value as taught by Ito to have an authentication system with a refenced authentication data stored and ready to be used when there is an authentication occasion by using the refenced authentication data to compare to a recent data input. See [0009] A biometric authentication device… performing authentication of the biometric authentication data on the basis of reference biometric data of the user… storing the reference biometric data and second reference biometric data that is obtained by copying the reference biometric data… determines, on the basis of a first matching ratio of the biometric authentication data and the second reference biometric data, that authentication has been successfully completed and when a second matching ratio of biometric authentication data generated in the preceding authentication and the biometric authentication data is higher than the first matching ratio, the first and second matching ratios being calculated by the authentication means… the third matching ratio is equal to or lower than-a predetermined value.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
transferring, from the POS terminal to the in-vehicle computing device, request to receive payment credentials of the cardholder;
(“[0048] In block 302, the system (e.g., via vehicle communication system 110) may receive, via the NFC tag (e.g., NFC tag 112), a transaction request for a fuel transaction for the vehicle from a third-party POS NFC reader (e.g., NFC reader 132) positioned proximate a fuel pump”).
transferring, from the in-vehicle computing device to the POS terminal, payment credentials of the cardholder, in response to the request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder, provided that the payment transaction is authorized; and wherein settling the payment transaction is performed by the POS terminal, using the payment credentials of the cardholder
(“[0063] In block 312, the system (e.g., via vehicle communication system 110) may transmit, via the NFC tag, the first account payment information to the third-party POS NFC reader to complete the fuel transaction for the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
retransferring, from the in-vehicle computing device to the mobile device, a request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder; transferring, from the mobile device to the in-vehicle computing device, the payment credentials of the cardholder, in response to the request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder
(“[0018] The vehicle may be configured to retrieve account payment information associated with a first authorized user of the one or more authorized users based on detecting a first user device associated with that first authorized user”).
(“[0035] Vehicle communication system 110 may be configured to receive payment account information associated with one or more authorized users, for example, via one or more user devices associated with the one or more authorized users”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
transferring, from the in-vehicle computing device to the mobile device, a request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder; transferring, from the mobile device to the in-vehicle computing device, the payment credentials of the cardholder, in response to the request to receive the payment credentials of the cardholder; wherein settling the payment transaction is performed by the in-vehicle computing device, using the payment credentials of the cardholder
(“[0018] The vehicle may be configured to retrieve account payment information associated with a first authorized user of the one or more authorized users based on detecting a first user device associated with that first authorized user”).
(“[0035] Vehicle communication system 110 may be configured to receive payment account information associated with one or more authorized users, for example, via one or more user devices associated with the one or more authorized users”).
(“[0068] The NFC tag may then transmit the credit card information, via the wireless connection, to the NFC reader such that the credit card information then gets transmitted from the fuel station POS terminal to a financial institution associated with the owner's credit card. The financial institution may then authorize the transaction”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
transferring from the POS terminal to the in-vehicle computing device, a seller payment data element, comprising at least one of:(a) a payment credentials of a seller; (b) a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) link to a payment service of a seller; and wherein settling the payment transaction is further performed using the seller payment data element
(“[0056] Merchant Category Codes (MCC), Merchant Name and/or Merchant ID, for example, may be utilized to identify the appropriate merchants and locations. In certain implementations, merchants identified as fuel stations (by the MCC) may be emphasized or prioritized in the determination of the fuel station transaction geographic region. In certain implementations, transactions in the user history that are indicated as “card-present” may be emphasized or prioritized in the determination of the fuel station transaction geographic region for the user. When the merchant location falls within the known fuel station transaction geographic region, the system may approve a transaction request up to the spend limit. Conversely, when the merchant location falls outside of the known fuel station transaction geographic region, the system may perform one or more fraud prevention actions to authenticate the user. Such fraud prevention actions may include certain types of multi-factor authentication communications/confirmations, for example, via the user's mobile computing device. The fraud prevention actions may include one or more of SMS message confirmation, e-mail confirmation, PIN entry, password entry, touchID, biometric confirmation, etc”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
providing, via a user interface (UI) of the in-vehicle computing device, UI selection data elements, corresponding to optional parameters to be selected by the cardholder; receiving, via the UI of the in-vehicle computing device, an input selection data element, entered by the cardholder, representing selection of at least one of said UI selection data elements; and wherein settling the payment transaction is further performed based on the input selection data element
(“[0059] In some embodiments, the system may detect user devices associated with more than one authorized user. For example, a vehicle owner and her spouse may be riding in the vehicle together and may each be carrying a respective mobile phone. The system may thus be configured to detect both the owner's and the spouse's mobile phones. In such case, the system may be configured to predict which of the two authorized users is currently driving the vehicle, for example, based on one or more other vehicle user settings (e.g., chair position, mirror position, radio channel selections, etc.) stored in the vehicle's computer, and may as a default tee up the account payment information associated with the driver, as further described below. The system may also be configured to transmit a prompt, for example via the owner's and/or spouse's mobile phone (e.g., via a mobile application, a text message, an email, etc.) or a digital screen disposed within the vehicle, to allow the owner and/or spouse to manually select which of their respective account payment information they wish to use for the upcoming transaction, as further described below. The above-mentioned features may be customizable by one or more authorized users of the vehicle such that in an instance where the vehicle detects user devices associated with more than one authorized user, the system may be configured to tee up account payment information associated with a previously selected authorized user”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
transferring, from the POS terminal to the in-vehicle computing device, an option selection data element, representing said optional parameters; and wherein providing, via the UI of the in-vehicle computing device, UI selection data elements, is performed based on the option selection data element
(“[0059] In some embodiments, the system may detect user devices associated with more than one authorized user. For example, a vehicle owner and her spouse may be riding in the vehicle together and may each be carrying a respective mobile phone. The system may thus be configured to detect both the owner's and the spouse's mobile phones. In such case, the system may be configured to predict which of the two authorized users is currently driving the vehicle, for example, based on one or more other vehicle user settings (e.g., chair position, mirror position, radio channel selections, etc.) stored in the vehicle's computer, and may as a default tee up the account payment information associated with the driver, as further described below. The system may also be configured to transmit a prompt, for example via the owner's and/or spouse's mobile phone (e.g., via a mobile application, a text message, an email, etc.) or a digital screen disposed within the vehicle, to allow the owner and/or spouse to manually select which of their respective account payment information they wish to use for the upcoming transaction, as further described below. The above-mentioned features may be customizable by one or more authorized users of the vehicle such that in an instance where the vehicle detects user devices associated with more than one authorized user, the system may be configured to tee up account payment information associated with a previously selected authorized user”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nowak, Ito and Troia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Nowak further discloses
the payment credentials of the cardholder or the payment credentials of the seller comprise at least one of (a) a Primary Account Number (PAN) of the cardholder or the seller accordingly, (b) a payment token of the cardholder or the seller accordingly
(“[0025] Financial service provider system 140 may be associated with an entity such as a business, corporation, individual, partnership, or any entity that may provide financial services or processing of financial transactions such as a bank, a credit card company, or the like. In some embodiments, financial service provider system 140 may store and/or have access to detailed customer information, such as account numbers, transaction information, etc., associated with a customer”).
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak in view of Ito, further in view of and Juliver (20120041675).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nowak and Ito, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Nowak and Ito do not disclose but Juliver does teaches
the POS terminal comprises an antenna array and the at least one parameter of the first wireless connection is selected from a list consisting of. (i) signal strength; (ii) Angle of Arrival (AoA); (iii) Angle of Departure (AoD); and (iv) Time-of-Flight (ToF)
(“[0221] "Directional location accuracy enhancement services" can be used to improve the accuracy of GPS-based location services. A transportation services vehicle may be equipped with a small device containing multiple antennae configured in an array optimized for direction-finding. This device may be place inside or outside of said vehicle in order to enable it to receive a signal from a designated client client's mobile device and determine the direction from which the signal is coming relative to the vehicle. This device may also indicate received signal strength… Received signal strengths as enabled antennae are selected may be compared and or analyzed either by technology internal or external to the device, such that the direction from which the signal is coming may be surmised”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination Nowak and Ito to include the POS terminal comprises an antenna array and the at least one parameter of the first wireless connection is selected from a list consisting of. (i) signal strength; (ii) Angle of Arrival (AoA); (iii) Angle of Departure (AoD); and (iv) Time-of-Flight (ToF) as taught by Juliver to discern the direction of the device/party by comparing competing signal strengths using antenna array – see (“[0221] "Directional location accuracy enhancement services" can be used to improve the accuracy of GPS-based location services. A transportation services vehicle may be equipped with a small device containing multiple antennae configured in an array optimized for direction-finding. This device may be place inside or outside of said vehicle in order to enable it to receive a signal from a designated client client's mobile device and determine the direction from which the signal is coming relative to the vehicle. This device may also indicate received signal strength… Received signal strengths as enabled antennae are selected may be compared and or analyzed either by technology internal or external to the device, such that the direction from which the signal is coming may be surmised.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. § 101… claims have been amended… (reciting amended claim language)… Notably, original claim 1 did not recite "conducting transactions by requesting payment" or "settling the transaction." While the invention is generally applied in the context of payment transactions, claim 1 as originally filed was directed solely to the authorization phase-specifically, the confirmation of the cardholder's identity through the proposed technical solution. The mechanics of the payment transaction itself were never encompassed within the scope of claim 1,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims clearly state that this is an interaction between “a in-vehicle computing device”, “a Point-Of-Sale (POS) terminal”, and “a mobile device being associated with a cardholder”. The interaction involves “a request to authorize the payment transaction”. Independent method claim 12 has the additional language of “settling the payment transaction, provided that the payment transaction is authorized”. Finally, the title of the claimed invention is “System And Method Of Authorizing And Performing Payment Transactions.”
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the Office Action, it is indicated that claim 1 "recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk". The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The aspects of using three computing devices - the in-vehicle computing device, the POS terminal, and the mobile device being associated with a cardholder (e.g., cardholder's smartphone) - operating collectively in a unique manner to securely perform cardholder' s identification, are not related to any "fundamental" and/or "economic" practices and not directed to mitigating any financial risks, but to "increasing security of in-vehicle payments, while ... requiring consumer interaction with in-vehicle computer only" (see paragraph [009] of the application as filed,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited devices (in-vehicle computing device, the POS terminal, and the mobile device) are natural technical components belonging to (and used by) the parties involved in the process. As an analogy, if two people were to telephone each other, it’s just natural that each party should have a telephone to make a telephone call happen.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Amended claim 1 now recites "an in-vehicle computing device", "a POS terminal" and "a mobile device associated with a cardholder'' instead of "a first computing device", "a second computing device" and "a third computing device", respectively, thereby limiting the claim to a particular technological environment where the cardholder's identification must be checked when being inside the vehicle and operating the in-vehicle computing device,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is a business model/process of transacting when the user is near the store/POS.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“claim 1 as amended now includes… (reciting amended claim language)… The Applicant emphasizes that the abovementioned limitation cannot be considered a part of "fundamental economic practices". Although, if considered individually, the mere aspect of determining proximity of the in-vehicle computing device to specific geographical location may be considered conventional in general (e.g., when using GPS navigation for driving purposes), it is unconventional for economic practices to refer to the proximity of the in-vehicle computing device to the POS terminal as a trigger to start a cardholder identification procedure for the purposes of the payment transaction authorization,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is important to note that the claimed invention is not improving the GPS technology, or the user device, or the POS technology. These technical elements are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“claim 1, provides a non-conventional mechanism, in which, on the one hand, the reference authentication data - which, according to claim 1 as amended, is limited to "biometric data of the cardholder" or "numeric or alphanumeric code" - is required to be constantly stored solely in the memory of the mobile device associated with the cardholder (e.g., cardholder's smartphone), thereby providing an improvement to the technological field of in-car payments by enhancing cybersecurity. On the other hand, the solution allows the cardholder to perform authorization ( e.g., when making a purchase) by operating only the in-car computing device, thereby avoiding unnecessary usage of the mobile device. This, among being simply comfortable and user friendly, helps saving mobile device's battery life, thereby providing additional contribution to the technological improvement (emphasis original’s),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is an abstract idea of having an intermediary device to operate on – similar to having the car screen able to make a call without the user accessing the cell-phone, or listen to music without accessing the music app on the cell-phone.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“as now recited in the amended claim 1, the proximity may be acknowledged by "(a) determining a geolocation of the in-vehicle computing device via Global Positioning System (GPS); estimating distance from the determined geolocation of the in-vehicle computing device to a known geolocation of the POS terminal; and acknowledging, by the POS terminal, the proximity of the in-vehicle computing device, based on the estimated distance; and (b) establishing a first wireless connection between the in-vehicle computing device and the POS terminal; determining a value of at least one radio signal parameter associated with the first wireless connection; and acknowledging, by the POS terminal, the proximity of the in-vehicle computing device, provided that the value of the at least one radio signal parameter surpasses a predefined threshold value thereof,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the claimed invention is not improving the GPS technology, or the wireless technology. These technical elements are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the amended claim 1 now explicitly recites "deleting the reference authentication data element from the in-vehicle computing device after authorizing the payment transaction". Thereby, the improvement of the technological field of in-car payments is now evident - the in-car computing devices stores the sensitive data (the reference authentication data element) only for a short amount of time needed to perform the comparison. After that, the reference authentication data element is deleted from the memory of the in-vehicle computing device and thereby remains only in the memory of the mobile device, to ensure data protection and fraud prevention,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The decision to delete information afterward is a business decision/process (carried out by “generic computer”). It is an additional step in the transaction process. And it is not patentable. The Alice Court teaches that abstract ideas that lack genuine innovation beyond the use of generic computers are not patentable.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Example 35 "Verifying A Bank Customer's Identity To Permit An ATM Transaction" (arguments regarding eligibility of claims 2 and 3), as the present case is similar thereto, and claims in this example are indicated, by the Office, as patent eligible under the same rationale (emphasis original’s),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is not the same as Example 35, claim 2. Conducting transactions by requesting payment, authenticating user (by matching user’s input to previously stored input), and settling the transaction is not the same as conducting a secure automated teller transaction by obtaining customer‐specific information, comparing the obtained customer‐specific information with customer information from the financial institution to authenticate the customer’s identity, and determining whether the transaction should proceed when a match from the analysis verifies the authenticity of the customer’s identity. In particular, Example 35, claim 2 deals with potential fraud by obtaining customer-specific information from a bank card, a processor comparing data, generating a random code and transmitting it to the customer’s mobile communication device, and the processor reading an image that was generated by the customer’s mobile communication device in response to receipt of the random code, where the image includes encrypted code data. The claimed invention does not have the elements and the steps recited in Example 35. One must read Example 35 narrowly in deference to the Alice Court’s emphatic prohibition against patenting abstract ideas that lack genuine innovation beyond the use of generic computers. Implementing a business process/idea by processing data using generic computers is not patentable.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. § 103… Claim 1 as amended includes… (reciting amended claim language)… the Applicant emphasizes that neither Nowak nor Ito alone or in combination teach or suggest the abovementioned limitations of the amended independent claim 1,”
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new analysis in view of the additional references being used in the current rejection. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“In contrast, the invention of amended claim 1 shifts the user identification logic to the in-vehicle computing device, as described above… Accordingly, the claimed method reflects a non-obvious integration of proximity-based control and in-vehicle biometric authentication that cannot be reasonably derived from a predictable combination of Nowak and Ito and therefore is not rendered obvious in view of their teachings,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. It does not have to be “biometric authentication”. The claims specifically stated that could be “a touchscreen configured to represent a virtual keyboard; and wherein the reference authentication data element and the input authentication data element comprise a numeric or alphanumeric code”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Juliver relates to transportation coordination and vehicle dispatch based on geolocation. It does not teach proximity determination as a trigger for initiating cardholder identification or authentication,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument is not found persuasive because the applicant is arguing against the references individually. Juliver is considered in view of Nowak and Ito. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Juliver teaches a system that can discern the direction of the device/party by comparing competing signal strengths using antenna array.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693