DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Claims filed on 05/02/2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending and are examined hereon.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The present invention is directed to exchanging tokens for payment transactions via wallets based on security level of the wallets. If the rejection rendered hereon are properly overcome, the claims may become patentable as the prior art made of record alone or in combination do not disclose elements of: wherein during the transaction initialization phase, an authorization certificate is transmitted to the other transaction unit, wherein the authorization certificate is used to certify the public key used during the authorization, and wherein the authorization certificate comprises the security level indicator and/or a transaction unit identifier; an identification-certificate, which comprises the security level indicator and/or a transaction unit identifier, and/or a security level indicator certificate; wherein in the offline transaction scenario the means for transmitting one or more tokens of the low security level transaction unit, based on the stored security level indicator, is in a blocked state; determining a security level indicator indicating a low security level of a low security level transaction unit, by reading a security level indicator stored in the transaction unit and/or by receiving a security level indicator of another transaction unit; and in the offline transaction scenario, blocking a transmission of one or more tokens from the low security level transaction unit; determining a security level indicator indicating a low security level of a low security level transaction unit, by reading a security level indicator stored in the transaction unit and/or by receiving a security level indicator of another transaction unit; and in the offline transaction scenario, blocking a transmission of one or more tokens from the low security level transaction unit. (Claims 10-11, 13-14 and 16, respectively) Applicant should consider moving those elements into the independent claims
Yet even if the missing claimed elements were found in a reasonable number of references, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not have been motivated to combine the above missing elements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “transaction unit,” “means for receiving,” “means for… storing,” and “means for transmitting,” in Claims 1-7 and 13, respectively.
The specification of the PGPub discloses:
[0164] “The TUlow may be referred to as simple-wallet, the TUhigh may be referred to as secure wallet.”
[0165] “These wallets are, for example, software applications within the electronic terminal device in which the TU is operationally embedded. A wallet may be set up as an application on a smartphone, smart card or payment terminal.”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-13 and 15 are directed to a “A low/high security level transaction unit…” (Machine). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of transaction data processing, which is an abstract idea. 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 in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test since the steps include commercial interactions, and managing relationships (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)). The use of a physical aid to help perform Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept steps does not negate the Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept nature of the limitations, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a Methods of Organized Human Activity even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to receiving and storing transaction data during an transaction interaction between transacting entities using transaction relationship data. More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 1, as similarly as 3, 12, 14 and 16,
A low/high security level transaction units for managing transactions in an electronic transaction system, transactions comprising a token exchange, the transaction unit comprising:
means for receiving one or more tokens from another transaction unit in a transaction within the electronic transaction system; and
means for permanently storing a security level indicator, the security level indicator being configured to indicate the low (high) security level of the low (high) security level transaction unit,
wherein the security level indicator being transmitted prior to a token exchange with the other transaction unit in an offline transaction scenario.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of transaction data processing. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-13 and 15 further describe the abstract idea of transaction data processing. That is, although claim 10 recites functional steps, the claim simply further describe the abstract idea of transaction data processing. Further, although claim 12 recites an electronic transaction system comprising: a plurality of transaction units according to claim 1, each of the plurality of transaction units are enabled for receiving one or more tokens during a transaction; and a token register for registering the tokens of the electronic transaction system in which the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements that are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 recite “the transaction unit comprising: means for receiving… means for permanently storing…” The Applicant’s Specification of the PGPub discloses:
[0164] “The TUlow may be referred to as simple-wallet, the TUhigh may be referred to as secure wallet.”
[0165] “These wallets are, for example, software applications within the electronic terminal device in which the TU is operationally embedded. A wallet may be set up as an application on a smartphone, smart card or payment terminal.”
However, the Applicant’s Specification does not disclose the full breath of the claim language. That is, although the Specification provides that the transaction unit is a wallet as a software, the Specification do not disclose that the wallet as a software comprising the means nor what the means are. Therefore, the Applicant’s Specification is insufficient to support the claims language. (See In re Katz, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claims 2, 4, 7 and 13 are also rejected based on the same rational as each recite what the transaction units comprise of which the Specification do not disclose.
Claims 2 and 4-16 are also rejected as each depend on claims 1 and 3.
Claims 1 and 3 recite “the transaction unit comprising: means for receiving… means for permanently storing…” The Applicant’s Specification of the PGPub discloses:
[0032] “In particular, both transaction units do not have and/or use a remote connection during the offline electronic payment transaction. The transfer will take place only by local communication (only), preferably by local wireless communication means, such as Bluetooth, NFC, or any other suitable wireless communication protocol.”
However, the Applicant’s Specification does not disclose the full breath of the claim language. That is, although the Specification provides that the transaction unit is a wallet as a software, the Specification do not disclose that the wallet as a software comprising the Bluetooth or NFC for local communication means nor what the means in the claims are hence the Specification does not explain what hardware and software with specific steps or procedures, to accomplish the function of receiving or storing as the claim require. As the Specification do not provide a proper structure or hardware as to what the means are, the Specification is insufficient and do not provider proper written description as required. (See MPEP 2161.01 (I)).
Claims 2, 4-7 and 13 are also rejected based on the same rational as each recite the functions of the means of which the Specification do not disclose a proper support.
Claims 2 and 4-16 are also rejected as each depend on claims 1 and 3.
Claims 14 and 16 recites “blocking a transmission of one or more tokens from the low security level transaction unit.” The Applicant’s Specification of the PGPub discloses:
[0034] “In the blocked state, the transmitting means is deactivated for transmitting tokens. It is thus not possible to transmit (send) tokens in the blocked stated of this transmitting means to another transaction unit.”
However, the Applicant’s Specification does not provide description for the full breath of the claim language. That is, the Specification does not describe what is involved in performing the act of blocking or the manner in which the blocking is performed. Although the Specification provides that the transmitting means being in the blocked state as being deactivated, the Specification does not explain what hardware and/or software with specific steps or procedures, to accomplish the function. As the Specification do not provide a proper structure/hardware as to what the transmitting means is, the Specification is insufficient and do not provider proper written description as required. (See MPEP 2161.01 (I)).
Claim 15 is also rejected as it depend on claim 14.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recite “low security level,” and Claim 3 recites “high security level,” which are relative term that renders the claim indefinite. Although the Specification discloses at Par. [0021] “The low security level of the low security level transaction unit is a security level that is lower than a high security level of a high security level transaction unit (as defined below),” the terms “low/high security level” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claims 3-6 and 13-15 are also rejected based on the same rational as each recite the terms “low security level” and/or “high security level,” respectively.
Claims 2 and 4-16 are also rejected as each depend on claims 1 and 3.
Claim limitation “means for receiving,” “means for… storing,” and “means for transmitting,” in Claims 1-7 and 13, respectively, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification of the PGPub discloses:
[0032] “The transfer will take place only by local communication (only), preferably by local wireless communication means, such as Bluetooth, NFC, or any other suitable wireless communication protocol.”
[0015]-[0018] “Permanently storing the security level indicator may mean that this indicator is stored in a non-volatile memory area within the low security level transaction unit… (programmable) read-only-memory, or a write-once-memory, also called persistent memory… e.g. in a personalization phase or firmware insertion phase of the production… written in a semi-permanent memory, e.g., a flash memory… [0144] e.g. in a once-write storage…”
The specification does not describe the algorithm for performing the recited function. Because these limitations invoke 112(f), the specification must clearly link the recited functions to the corresponding structure. For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the corresponding structure includes both the computer and the algorithm that performs the recited functions. This requirement is described in the notice issued in the Federal Register on March 8, 2011 (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2011/week10/TOC.htm#ref15).
Specifically, the notice states:
3. Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations: For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking §112, ¶6, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general-purpose computer or microprocessor.96 To claim a means for performing a particular computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming.97
The structure corresponding to a §112, ¶6 claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general-purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification.98 The corresponding structure is not simply a general-purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.99
The notice further states:
A rejection under §112, ¶2 is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor.103 For example, mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming,104 or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish the software function,105 would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of §112, ¶2. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function.106
Here, the specification does not recite that the “means” is associated with any computer, microprocessor, or other structure, where the computer performs the algorithms necessary to carry out the functions of “receiving,” “storing,” and “transmitting.” The term “means” is a non-structural term (See 35 USC §112 Supplementary Examination Guidelines, slide 40, 4/8/2011, available at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/112_suppl_exam_2011.ppt). Therefore, the claim are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 13 are also rejected based on the same rational as each recite the term “means,” which are non-structural terms performing steps.
Claims 2, and 4-16 are also rejected as each depend on claims 1 and 3.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huxham et al. (US 2015/0227932 A1), in view of Piel (US 2020/0007536 A1), in view of Singhal et al. (US 2022/0343302 A1) in further view of Finlow-Bates et al. (US 2024/0281796 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 3, Huxham discloses a security transaction unit(s) (“mobile wallet system(s)/secure application(s)”) for managing transactions in an electronic transaction system, (Pars. [0077], [0083] “Referring now to FIG. 9, in some embodiments, the send communication command (824) may instruct the mobile device (800) to send a series of messages to a recipient device (830) to set up a secure communication channel or tunnel.”)
transactions comprising a token exchange, (Fig. 9; Par. [0087] “These communications may include payment credentials which are to be transferred from a consumer mobile device to a second mobile device.”)
the transaction unit comprising:
means for receiving (“communication protocol”) one or more tokens (“payment credentials”) from another transaction unit in a transaction within the electronic transaction system; (Figs. 9-10; Pars. [0013] “The secure communications may include sending secure communications using a communication protocol selected from a group consisting of SMS protocol, USSD protocol, Near Field Communication (NFC) protocol, Radio Frequency (RF) communications protocol, and Near Sound Communication (NSC) protocol.” [0087]) and
means for permanently storing. (Pars. [0055], [0064], [0105] “a read-only memory (ROM)”)
Huxham does not explicitly disclose: a low/high security level, and means for storing a security level indicator, the security level indicator being configured to indicate the low/high security level of the low/high security level.
Piel disclose:
a low/high security level, (Pars. [0076], [0082] “AC computing device 160 determines a first security level of authentication request 212 based on authentication factor 214. The security level may include any of authentication score, a risk score, and/or a trust score. For example, authentication requests may be scored on a range from 0 to 100 based on the included authentication factors.”)
means for storing a security level indicator, the security level indicator being configured to indicate the low/high security level of the low/high security level. (Fig. 1; Par. [0006] “storing the first security level and the first timestamp in a database as authentication data.” [0043] “the security level may include any of authentication score, a risk score, and/or a trust score. For example, authentication requests may be scored on a range from 0 to 100 based on the included authentication factors. In another embodiment, the security level may be an indicator of multifactor authentication.”)
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the read-only storage that stores keys for secure communication between devices with electronic wallets device that performs a cryptographic operation on data or information associated with the secure operation as indicated by the protocol message (Figs. 8-9; Pars. [0055], [0089]) of Huxham in view of Piel in order to maintain keys that can be user-specific and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion device (Huxham, Par. [0064]) and to prevent fraud by checking security level for transaction (Piel, Par. [0020]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Huxham nor does Piel disclose the security level indicator being configured to indicate the security level transaction unit.
Singhal disclose the security level indicator being configured to indicate the security level transaction unit(s). (Par. [0099] “the risk score can be calculated using a plurality of parameters including but not limited to… transactions to blacklisted wallets…”)
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the protocol message that include a flag or a protocol identification (ID) field to indicate whether the protocol message is intended for specific wallet device (Figs. 8-9; Par. [0088]) of Huxham, Piel in view of Singhal in order to communicate only with user-specific wallet devices and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion wallet device (Huxham, Par. [0085]) and to prevent fraud by checking validity of user wallets before communication with devices (Singhal, Par. [0099]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Neither Huxham, Piel nor does Singhal disclose wherein the security level indicator being transmitted prior to a token exchange with the other transaction unit in an offline transaction scenario.
Finlow disclose wherein the security level indicator being transmitted prior to a token exchange with the other transaction unit in an offline transaction scenario. (Pars. [0019] “evaluating the request first includes deriving a risk score for an initial sender of the transaction. The risk score is derived based on at least one of: the identity of the requesting user, or potential maliciousness of the transaction.” [0380], [0435])
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the protocol message that include a flag or a protocol identification (ID) field to indicate whether the protocol message is intended for specific wallet device (Figs. 8-9; Par. [0088]) of Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow in order to communicate only with user-specific wallet devices and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion wallet device (Huxham, Par. [0085]) and to prevent fraud by checking security level (Finlow, Par. [0019]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claim 4, Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Huxham discloses: the security transaction unit according to claim 3, wherein the security transaction unit further comprises means for transmitting one or more tokens to another transaction unit in a transaction within the electronic transaction system. (Figs. 7-10; Pars. [0013], [0070] “The consumer using a first mobile device is able to authorize the transfer of the payment credentials to a second mobile device that is similar to the consumer mobile device and also includes an HSM, so that a different person is able to use the payment credentials on the consumer's behalf. This is illustrated in FIG. 7” [0087])
Huxham does not explicitly disclose: a high security level.
Piel disclose: a high security level, (Pars. [0076], [0082] “AC computing device 160 determines a first security level of authentication request 212 based on authentication factor 214. The security level may include any of authentication score, a risk score, and/or a trust score. For example, authentication requests may be scored on a range from 0 to 100 based on the included authentication factors.”)
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the read-only storage that stores keys for secure communication between devices with electronic wallets device that performs a cryptographic operation on data or information associated with the secure operation as indicated by the protocol message (Figs. 8-9; Pars. [0055], [0089]) of Huxham in view of Piel in order to maintain keys that can be user-specific and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion device (Huxham, Par. [0064]) and to prevent fraud by checking security level for transaction (Piel, Par. [0020]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claim 8, Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Huxham discloses identifier of the transaction unit. (Figs. 9-10; Par. [0041] “Typically, a consumer will have undergone an enrolment process in which a unique identifier will have been created by the payment processing network, the identifier being associated uniquely with a particular mobile device's HSM. To enable unique identification of the HSM, the HSM, in a preferred embodiment, stores a unique token which enables it to be verified.”)
Huxham does not explicitly disclose: The transaction unit according to claim 1, wherein the security level indicator is one or more of the following:
a data element within a transaction unit;
a data element within a certificate;
a data element within a security certificate.
Piel disclose: a data element (“authentication score, a risk score, and/or a trust score”) within a transaction unit. (Fig. 1; Par. [0006] “storing the first security level and the first timestamp in a database as authentication data.” [0043] “the security level may include any of authentication score, a risk score, and/or a trust score. For example, authentication requests may be scored on a range from 0 to 100 based on the included authentication factors. In another embodiment, the security level may be an indicator of multifactor authentication.” [0082] “AC computing device 160 determines a first security level of authentication request 212 based on authentication factor 214. The security level may include any of authentication score, a risk score, and/or a trust score. For example, authentication requests may be scored on a range from 0 to 100 based on the included authentication factors.”)
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the unique ID of the wallet device (Figs. 8-9; Par. [0041]) of Huxham in view of Piel in order to use user-specific and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion wallet device for secure authentication (Huxham, Figs. 8-9) and to prevent fraud by checking security level associated the user device (Piel, Par. [0020]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claim 9, Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Huxham discloses the transaction unit according to claim 1, the transaction initialization phase comprising an authentication step. (Figs. 9-10)
Huxham does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the security level indicator is exchanged during a transaction initialization phase of the transaction with the other transaction unit; or
during a token exchange phase of the transaction with the other transaction unit in the offline transaction scenario.
Neither Huxham, Piel nor does Singhal disclose during a token exchange phase of the transaction with the other transaction unit in the offline transaction scenario.
Finlow disclose during a token exchange phase of the transaction with the other transaction unit in the offline transaction scenario. (Pars. [0019] “evaluating the request first includes deriving a risk score for an initial sender of the transaction. The risk score is derived based on at least one of: the identity of the requesting user, or potential maliciousness of the transaction.” [0380], [0435])
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the protocol message that include a flag or a protocol identification (ID) field to indicate whether the protocol message is intended for specific wallet device (Figs. 8-9; Par. [0088]) of Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow in order to communicate only with user-specific wallet devices and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion wallet device (Huxham, Par. [0085]) and to prevent fraud by checking security level (Finlow, Par. [0019]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claim 12, Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Huxham discloses an electronic transaction system comprising:
a plurality of transaction units according to claim 1, each of the plurality of transaction units are enabled for receiving one or more tokens during a transaction; (Figs. 9-10) and
a token register for registering the tokens of the electronic transaction system. (Par. [0041])
With respect to claim 15, Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow discloses all the limitations as described above. Huxham further discloses: wherein the method further comprises one or more of the following steps:
transaction determination, particularly including determination of transaction details and/or determination of the transaction scenario; and/or
exchange of the security level indicator as a data element of a certificate, such as an authentication certificate or a security level certificate;
authentication of the transaction unit, mutual authentication of both transaction units participating in the token exchange; (Fig. 9-10; Par. [0083]-[0085] “to provide an additional level of security to verify the identity of the devices, the recipient device (830) can respond to the reception of a valid and correct number challenge with an encryption key challenge (924)… If the decryption results in the random number that the recipient device (830) has previously sent to the mobile device (800), then the recipient device (830) can be further assured that the mobile device (800) equipped with the cryptographic expansion device (810) is an authorized device, and a secure communication channel or tunnel can be established between the mobile device (800) and the recipient device (830).”) and/or
confirming transaction completion to the other transaction unit participating in the token exchange.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huxham et al. (US 2015/0227932 A1), in view of Piel (US 2020/0007536 A1), in view of Singhal et al. (US 2022/0343302 A1), in view of Finlow-Bates et al. (US 2024/0281796 A1) and in further view of Jain et al. (US 2010/0012721 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Huxham discloses the security transaction unit according to claim 1, further comprising:
means for transmitting one or more tokens to another transaction unit in a transaction within the electronic transaction system. (Figs. 9-10; Pars. [0013] “The secure communications may include sending secure communications using a communication protocol selected from a group consisting of SMS protocol, USSD protocol, Near Field Communication (NFC) protocol, Radio Frequency (RF) communications protocol, and Near Sound Communication (NSC) protocol.” [0087])
transaction scenario. (Par. [0047] “It should be appreciated that the stored payment credentials may enable the consumer to conduct both acceptance terminal transactions and e-commerce transactions.”)
Huxham does not explicitly disclose: a low security level.
Piel disclose a low security level. (Pars. [0043], [0076], [0082])
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the read-only storage that stores keys for secure communication between devices with electronic wallets device that performs a cryptographic operation on data or information associated with the secure operation as indicated by the protocol message (Figs. 8-9; Pars. [0055], [0089]) of Huxham in view of Piel in order to maintain keys that can be user-specific and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion device (Huxham, Par. [0064]) and to prevent fraud by checking security level for transaction (Piel, Par. [0020]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Neither Huxham, Piel, Singhal nor does Finlow disclose wherein the means for transmitting is either in a released state or in a blocked state, wherein the means for transmitting is in a blocked state in the offline scenario.
Jain disclose wherein the means for transmitting is either in a released state or in a blocked state, wherein the means for transmitting is in a blocked state in the offline scenario. (Fig. 1; Pars. [0027] “The offline store 102 includes a mobile device 110 a having a transaction card 112 a and a Point of Sale (POS) device 114 that executes transactions with customers.” [0032] “In some implementations, the transaction card 112 may initiate a transaction in response to at least a user selecting a graphical element in the GUI 111. The transaction card 112 may initiate a transaction with the POS 114 in response to at least wireless request transmitted by the POS 114. In some implementations, the transaction card 112 may selectively switch the antenna between an on and off state in response to one or more events. The one or more events may include a user request, completion of transaction, insertion of card 112 in a different mobile device,” [0070], [0072])
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply modify the protocol message that include a flag or a protocol identification (ID) field to indicate whether the protocol message is intended for specific wallet device (Figs. 8-9; Par. [0088]) of Huxham, Piel, Singhal, Finlow in view of Jain in order to communicate only with user-specific wallet devices and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion wallet device (Huxham, Par. [0085]) and to perform authentication process on the device prior to activating antenna of the device for communication with other device within proximity of the device (Jain, Par. [0074]).
With respect to claim 5, Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Huxham discloses transaction scenario. (Par. [0047])
Huxham does not explicitly disclose: a low/high security level.
Piel disclose a low/high security level. (Pars. [0043], [0076], [0082])
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the read-only storage that stores keys for secure communication between devices with electronic wallets device that performs a cryptographic operation on data or information associated with the secure operation as indicated by the protocol message (Figs. 8-9; Pars. [0055], [0089]) of Huxham in view of Piel in order to maintain keys that can be user-specific and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion device (Huxham, Par. [0064]) and to prevent fraud by checking security level for transaction (Piel, Par. [0020]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Neither Huxham, Piel, Singhal nor does Finlow disclose the means for receiving is either in a released state or in a blocked state, wherein in the offline scenario the means for receiving is in a blocked state with a security transaction unit and in a released state with a transaction unit; and/or in an online scenario the means for transmitting is in a released state.
Jain disclose the means for receiving is either in a released state or in a blocked state, wherein in the offline scenario the means for receiving is in a blocked state with a security transaction unit and in a released state with a transaction unit; and/or in an online scenario the means for transmitting is in a released state. (Fig. 4; Pars. [0073] “The CPU 408 may transmit the switching command in response to an event such as a user request, completion of a transaction, and/or others. When switched on, the security chip and contactless chipset 406 is connected to the antenna 402 and executes one or more of the following:… encrypt transmitted messages” [0074])
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply modify the protocol message that include a flag or a protocol identification (ID) field to indicate whether the protocol message is intended for specific wallet device (Figs. 8-9; Par. [0088]) of Huxham, Piel, Singhal, Finlow in view of Jain in order to communicate only with user-specific wallet devices and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion wallet device (Huxham, Par. [0085]) and to perform authentication process on the device prior to activating antenna of the device for communication with other device within proximity of the device (Jain, Par. [0074]).
With respect to claim 6, Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow discloses all the limitations as described above. Huxham further discloses transaction scenario. (Par. [0047] “It should be appreciated that the stored payment credentials may enable the consumer to conduct both acceptance terminal transactions and e-commerce transactions.”)
Huxham does not explicitly disclose: a low/high security level.
Piel disclose a low/high security level. (Pars. [0043], [0076], [0082])
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the read-only storage that stores keys for secure communication between devices with electronic wallets device that performs a cryptographic operation on data or information associated with the secure operation as indicated by the protocol message (Figs. 8-9; Pars. [0055], [0089]) of Huxham in view of Piel in order to maintain keys that can be user-specific and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion device (Huxham, Par. [0064]) and to prevent fraud by checking security level for transaction (Piel, Par. [0020]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Neither Huxham, Piel nor does Singhal disclose in an online scenario the means for receiving is in a blocked state with a security transaction unit; and/or in an online transaction scenario the means for transmitting of the security transaction unit is in a blocked state with transaction units except with at least one dedicated level transaction unit.
Jain disclose in an online scenario the means for receiving is in a blocked state with a security transaction unit; and/or in an online transaction scenario the means for transmitting of the security transaction unit is in a blocked state with transaction units except with at least one dedicated level transaction unit. (Fig. 4; Par. [0074] “In some implementations, the CPU 408 may automatically deactivate the antenna 402 when the intelligent card 400 is removed from the host device.”)
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply modify the protocol message that include a flag or a protocol identification (ID) field to indicate whether the protocol message is intended for specific wallet device (Figs. 8-9; Par. [0088]) of Huxham, Piel, Singhal, Finlow in view of Jain in order to communicate only with user-specific wallet devices and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion wallet device (Huxham, Par. [0085]) and to perform authentication process on the device prior to activating antenna of the device for communication with other device within proximity of the device (Jain, Par. [0074]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huxham et al. (US 2015/0227932 A1), in view of Piel (US 2020/0007536 A1), in view of Singhal et al. (US 2022/0343302 A1), in view of Finlow-Bates et al. (US 2024/0281796 A1) in further view of Dill et al. (US 2022/0172199 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Huxham, Piel, Singhal in view of Finlow discloses all the limitations as described above.
However, Huxham does not explicitly disclose security level indicator.
Piel disclose security level indicator. (Pars. [0076], [0082])
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the read-only storage that stores keys for secure communication between devices with electronic wallets device that performs a cryptographic operation on data or information associated with the secure operation as indicated by the protocol message (Figs. 8-9; Pars. [0055], [0089]) of Huxham in view of Piel in order to maintain keys that can be user-specific and unique to the user of the cryptographic expansion device (Huxham, Par. [0064]) and to prevent fraud by checking security level for transaction (Piel, Par. [0020]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Neither Huxham, Piel, Singhal nor does Finlow disclose: the transaction unit according to claim 1, further comprising:
means for transmitting one or more registration requests to a token reference register of the electronic transaction system,
wherein each registration request comprises one or more token references to be stored in the token reference register, and
wherein each token reference being uniquely assigned to a token in the electronic payment transaction system,
wherein the registration request comprises the indicator, particularly in one or more of the token references.
Dill discloses: the transaction unit according to claim 1, further comprising:
means for transmitting one or more registration requests to a token reference register of the electronic transaction system, (Fig. 2; Par. [0098] “The token requestor 204 may interact with the network token system 202 using a token requestor interface 208 for the generation, use and management of tokens.” [0099], [0141])
wherein each registration request comprises one or more token references (“token requestor identifier”) (Pars. [0075], [0100] “As part of the onboarding process, the token requestor 204 may register with the network token system 202 and may receive a token requestor identifier provided by the network token system 202.”)
to be stored in the token reference register, (Par. [0111] “a token requestor identifier for NFC token requests, a token requestor identifier, a real account identifier (e.g., PAN), a token expiration date and a token assurance level may be stored in the token vault for each token entry/record.”) and
wherein each token reference being uniquely assigned to a token in the electronic payment transaction system, (Par. [0111])
wherein the registration request comprises indicator, particularly in one or more of the token references. (Par. [0218] “FIG. 8 where the token is to be provided to a consumer device, the token request may include a token requestor identifier associated with the token requestor (e.g., mobile wallet provider), an account identifier (e.g., PAN), a token expiration date (e.g., may be same as account identifier (PAN) expiration date), and a requested token assurance level.”)
Therefore, 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 to substitute one equivalent technique for another to accomplish the same. That is, simply substituting the enrolment process (Par. [0041]) of Huxham, Piel, Singhal, Finlow in view of Dill in order to enable unique identification of the secure user device by storing a unique token that enables it to be verified (Huxham, Par. [0041]) and to provide an assurance indicator associated with the user device wallet (Dill, Par. [0155]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PGPub Albert et al. (US 2024/0275599 A1) discloses claims 1 and 3:
(“subscriber units TE1-2”) for managing transactions in an electronic transaction system, transactions comprising a token exchange, the transaction unit comprising: (Figs. 1-2, 4; Pars. [0154] “The subscriber units TE of the transaction system TS are configured to exchange tokens T directly amongst one another. In the case of FIG. 1 , the tokens are payment tokens, which are also referred to as digital coins. Each token T is generated by a token issuer TH (not shown in FIG. 1 ; see FIG. 2 ). Each token T can be modified by each subscriber unit TE, i.e. split, merged or switched (see FIGS. 6 to 8 ) and can be generated by the token issuer TH (see FIG. 4 ) and also deleted (see FIG. 5 ). A token issuer TH is, for example, a central bank.” [0173])
(Fig. 6; Par. [0199] “In the TE layer, the token T is output to the TE1.” [0213]) and
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WODAJO GETACHEW whose telephone number is (469)295-9069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00 CST.
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.
/WODAJO GETACHEW/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights