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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/09/25 has been entered.
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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esplin et al, US Pub. 2007/0194113, in view of Stoutenburg et al, US Pub. 2002/0153414.
Regarding claim 1, Esplin et al disclose a system and method for managing wireless point-of- sale transactions comprising: interfacing between a merchant terminal 14 and a consumer terminal 12 during a point-of-sale transaction; receiving a payment total at a non-secure processor of the consumer terminal 12 (par. 0087-0088); determining at the non-secure processor of the consumer terminal whether a payment card is an EMV card or a magnetic stripe-type card (the prior art discloses credit card and active smart cards, these cards can include IC chips and/or magnetic stripe); encrypting payment information using a secure processor of the consumer terminal when the payment card is an EMV card (see par. 0092); and providing the payment information to a payment system from the non-secure processor (to the clearinghouse 86). (See Fig. 27; par. 0099-0105).
Esplin et al fail to disclose that the merchant terminal and the customer terminal are part of the point of sale system for processing transactions between the consumer and the merchant.
Stoutenburg et al disclose systems and methods for performing transactions at a point of sale comprising: a merchant terminal 130a and a customer terminal 140a, the merchant terminal and the customer terminal are part of the point of sale system for processing transactions between the consumer and the merchant (Fig. 4A); a smart card reader integrated with the merchant terminal 130 and/or the customer device 140 that can read EMV cards (par. 079).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to modify the teachings of Esplim et al in view of the teachings of Stoutenburg et al to employ a point of sale with a dedicated integrated customer terminal for processing transactions between the customers and the merchant. Such modification would be more convenient and ensure every customer can perform their transaction with the dedicated customer terminal. Furthermore, by being EMV level 1 approval, the terminal is able to read data from the chip and handle it appropriately, including encryption and secure transmission. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the payment information, after being encrypted, is sent to the merchant terminal prior to being sent to the payment system (see Fig. 27).
Regarding claim 3, wherein a confirmation is provided to the merchant terminal upon confirmation of available funds for the point-of-sale transaction (see par. 0039-0040).
Regarding claim 9, further comprising: initiating a check-out procedure at the merchant terminal; and providing, by the merchant terminal, the payment total to the consumer terminal as part of the check-out procedure (the total cost of the goods or services is determined by the merchant terminal 14, par. 0038).
Regarding claim 10, further comprising: receiving, at the merchant terminal, information on an item or service; providing, by the merchant terminal, the information on the item or service to the non-secure processor of the consumer terminal; and displaying, by the non-secure processor, the information on the item or service on the consumer terminal (see par. 0038-0039; Fig. 12).
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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esplin et al as modified by Stoutenburg et al and further in view of Carlson, US Pub. 2008/0319905. The teachings of Esplin et al as modified by Stoutenburg et al have been discussed above.
Esplin et al disclose a system and method for managing wireless point-of- sale transactions comprising: interfacing between a merchant terminal 14 and a consumer terminal 12 during a point-of-sale transaction; receiving a payment total at a non-secure processor of the consumer terminal 12 (par. 0087-0088); determining at the non-secure processor of the consumer terminal whether a payment card is an EMV card or a magnetic stripe-type card (the prior art discloses credit card and active smart cards, these cards can include IC chips and/or magnetic stripe); encrypting payment information using a secure processor of the consumer terminal when the payment card is an EMV card (see par. 0092); and providing the payment information to a payment system from the non-secure processor (to the clearinghouse 86). (See Fig. 27; par. 0099-0105).
Esplin et al fail to disclose that the merchant terminal and the customer terminal are part of the point of sale system for processing transactions between the consumer and the merchant.
Stoutenburg et al disclose systems and methods for performing transactions at a point of sale comprising: a merchant terminal 130a and a customer terminal 140a, the merchant terminal and the customer terminal are part of the point of sale system for processing transactions between the consumer and the merchant (Fig. 4A); a smart card reader integrated with the merchant terminal 130 and/or the customer device 140 that can read EMV cards (par. 079).
It would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to modify the teachings of Esplim et al in view of the teachings of Stoutenburg et al to employ a point of sale with a dedicated integrated customer terminal for processing transactions between the customers and the merchant. Such modification would be more convenient and ensure every customer can perform their transaction with the dedicated customer terminal. Furthermore, by being EMV level 1 approval, the terminal is able to read data from the chip and handle it appropriately, including encryption and secure transmission. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Esplin et al as modified by Stoutenburg et al fail to disclose touch screen for providing information to the users and/or for requesting information from the users.
Carson discloses a secure mobile payment system comprising: a user interface module 512 may be any type of interface that allows a user to interact with the portable wireless device 502. Examples of such interfaces may be keypads, keyboards, touch screen, voice response units, and the like.
In view of the teachings of Carson, it would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to employ touch screen as user interface modules for proving information to the users and to request users’ inputs. Such modification would provide intuitive interaction, simplified input methods, easy to use, a more natural way to interact with the devices. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Esplin et al as modified by Stoutenburg et al.
Regarding claim 11, Esplin et al as modified by Carson disclose a point-of-sale system used in transactions between a merchant and a consumer, the system comprising: a first terminal, having a first processor, a first communication interface, a first touch controller, the first touch controller being configured to provide a merchant point-of-sale graphical user interface (GUI) to the first terminal; and a second terminal, having a second processor, a secure processor, a second communication interface, a multiplexer and a second touch controller, the second touch controller configured to provide a consumer GUI to the second terminal, the consumer GUI including a secure GUI and a non-secure GUI, the multiplexer being configured to receive inputs from the second touch controller, and to direct inputs received in the non-secure GUI to the second processor, and to direct inputs received in the secure GUI to the secure processor, the second communication interface being configured to send and receive electrical communication to the first communication interface (as discussed above, Esplin et al as modified by Stoutenburg et al and as further modified by Carson would provide a touch controller and a touch screen display, including GUI for providing information to the users and requesting inputs from the users, where communication between the merchant terminal and consumer terminal occurs bidirectionally).
Regarding claims 12-13, wherein a magnetic-stripe-type card-specific GUI is sent to the second terminal when a magnetic-stripe-type card is used in payment during a point- of-sale transaction (Esplin et al as modified by Stoutenburg et al and as further modified by Carson disclose both chip cards and magnetic cards can be used).
Regarding claim 14, further comprising a hybrid card reader configured to receive a payment card used during a point-of-sale transaction, the payment card being a magnetic-stripe-type card or an IC chip-type card, the hybrid card reader being coupled to the second terminal to perform a payment transaction during the point-of-sale transaction between the merchant and the consumer (Esplin et al as modified by Stoutenburg et al and as further modified by Carson disclose both magnetic cards and chip cards can be used, to use a hybrid card reader would have been obvious in order to read both cards so as to meet customer requirements).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the second terminal comprises: a secure enclave including the second touch controller, the multiplexer and the secure processor; and an unsecured portion including the second processor and a memory configured to store an operating system, the second processor further configured to execute the operating system (Esplin et al as modified by Stoutenburg et al and as further modified by Carson disclose that the consumer device and merchant device are connected, however the manor of which the two device are connected is matter of choice for meeting customer requirements, which therefore obvious).
Regarding claims 16-20, the limitations have been above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a method for facilitating processing of transactions which includes receiving, from a first component of the point-of-sale system of the merchant, a payment total at a non-secure processor of a second component of the point-of-sale system, wherein the first component is merchant-facing and the second component is customer-facing for receiving a payment card for processing the transaction, determining at the non-secure processor of the second component whether a payment card presented at the second component is an EMV card or a magnetic stripe-type card, encrypting payment information using a secure processor of the consumer terminal second component when the payment card is an EMV card, etc. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
Regarding claims 1-10, in view of the amendment, the rejection has been withdrawn. Claims 11-20, the prior arts still render claims obvious. The applicant argued that claims 11 and 16 are similar to claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The processing of card based on the type card is not fully recited in claims 11 and 16. The claims remain rejected as set forth above. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached on 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876