DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination (“RCE”) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 06/02/2026.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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, 12 have been amended.
Claims 10, 11, 21, 22 have been canceled.
Claims 23 and 24 have been added.
Claims 1-9, 12-20, and 23-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 4, 7, 12, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sosa (US 20020099607), in view of Moreton (US 20220247741).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 12, Sosa discloses:
a stored value card having a plurality of activation states including an activated state and an unactivated state, the stored value card including: an encrypted token; a predefined card value; and a card identifier, whereby the predefined card value can be utilised for a transaction if the card is in the activated state and cannot be utilised for a transaction if the card is in the unactivated state (By disclosing, “Each card number is encoded onto a corresponding cash card, such as on the magnetic strip typically provided on "charge" cards, such as credit cards, debit cards, bank cards, etc.” ([0035]); “As shown, the card number XYZ 207 from the card numbers 109 is encoded on the magnetic strip 205 of the cash card 201” ([0044]); “the card information is routed to the cash account system as processor of the card number, where the cash account system verifies the card number contained in the magnetic stripe and PIN. If valid and activated, the cash account system determines if the cash balance of the account is sufficient to cover the withdrawal or purchase amount in a similar manner as typical credit purchases.” ([0037]); “brick and mortar merchants typically include a validation unit or card reader or the like for reading encoded charge numbers on magnetic strips on charge cards or the like.” ([0031]); and “Since the cash cards cannot be activated for online use until they have been validated offline…The cash account system 107 provides even more security, since accounts are tracked and deactivated if a security breach is discovered, leading to at least partial recovery of funds” ([0090]));
a token reader for retrieving the encrypted token from the stored value card (By disclosing, “brick and mortar merchants typically include a validation unit or card reader or the like for reading encoded charge numbers on magnetic strips on charge cards or the like.” ([0031])); and
a token validator in communication with the token reader for receiving the encrypted token and using the encrypted token to validate the predefined card value and the card identifier, the token validator having at least one database for storing card value information and card identifier information, wherein the predefined card value and the card identifier are each validated based on the card value information and card identifier information when the stored value card is in the unactivated state, further wherein the stored value card is able to be activated (By disclosing, “Each card number is encoded onto a corresponding cash card, such as on the magnetic strip typically provided on "charge" cards… Each cash card is first validated…For example, at the point of sale (POS) to the user, the cash card is swiped by a clerk into a card reader for validation. The information on the magnetic strip, including the card number, is forwarded via the charge settlement network to the cash account system [(token validator)] as processor of the card number, which validates the cash card and the corresponding card number. Upon subsequent activation as described further below, the cash card with the card number may be used in a similar manner as a debit card” ([0035]); “The PIN 329, the desired cash amount 515 and the information on the magnetic strip 205 including the card number XYZ 207 is forwarded by the ATM 509 and the switch network 315 of the charge settlement network 115 to the cash account system 107 as processor. The transaction and account system 119 of the cash account system 107 verifies the card number XYZ and the PIN 329 and verifies or otherwise compares the information with the USER1 account 325. The cash amount 515 is compared with the account balance 331 of the USER1 account 325.” ([0057]); “The valid card database 317 includes other information that is associated and stored with the particular validated card number XYZ 207. The associated information may be retrieved from the inactive card database 301 if initially stored there, or is retrieved via the charge settlement network 115 from the magnetic strip 205 and any other transaction information forwarded via the charge settlement network 115. In particular, the valid card database 317 stores the validated card number XYZ 207 along with the cash or purchase amount 304 and a distributor or promoter identifier 333 identifying the particular distributor merchant PQR associated with the cash card 201.” ([0049])).
Sosa does not discloses, but Moreton teaches:
validating a card without accessing a system account of a registered user of the system (By disclosing, “At block 540, the authentication application 123 compares the card ID to one or more expected card ID values. For example, the authentication application 123 may query the URLs 126 and/or account data 124 to return results matching the card ID value. In some embodiments, the entire URL 106-1, rather than the card ID portion, is searched for a match in the URLs 126 and/or account data 124. If a match is not found, the authentication application 123 determines that the authentication fails. At block 545, the authentication application 123 determines that at least one match exists between the card ID (and/or URL 106-1) and one or more card IDs (and/or URLs) in the URLs 126 and/or account data 124. As such, the authentication application 123 may authenticate the URL 106-1 and determine the authentication is successful at block 550.” ([0064] of Moreton)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Sosa in view of Moreton to include validating a card without accessing a system account of a registered user of the system. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would prevent fraudulent cloned card identifier.
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 15, Sosa discloses:
wherein the stored value card includes a magnetic stripe and the token reader retrieves the token by reading the magnetic stripe (By disclosing, “For example, at the point of sale (POS) to the user, the cash card is swiped by a clerk into a card reader for validation. The information on the magnetic strip, including the card number, is forwarded via the charge settlement network to the cash account system [(token validator)] as processor of the card number, which validates the cash card and the corresponding card number.” ([0035])).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 18, Sosa discloses:
a secure communication channel for facilitating communication between the token reader and the token validator ([0028]).
Regarding claim(s) 23, Sosa does not disclose, but Moreton teaches:
wherein the token validator decrypts the encrypted token using an encryption key and using the decrypted encrypted token to validate the predefined card value and the card identifier, further wherein the encryption key is a symmetric or asymmetric encryption key (By disclosing, “At block 635, the authentication application 123 receives the request from the device 110. At block 640, the authentication application 123 decrypts the encrypted card ID in the URL, e.g., using the instance of the private key 104 stored by the server 120. At block 645, the authentication application 123 generates an expected dynamic card identifier.” ([0069] of Moreton)).
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sosa (US 20020099607), in view of Moreton (US 20220247741), further in view of Liu (US 20020120499).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 13, Sosa discloses:
wherein the status is one of: a validated status whereby the predefined card value and the card identifier are successfully validated; and an unvalidated status whereby the predefined card value and the card identifier not successfully validated (By disclosing, “ If the received card number is activated and if the purchase amount 304 does not exceed the cash balance 331 of the USER1 account 325, then the purchase transaction is authorized and accepted by the cash account system 107. If approved, the processor system 113 returns authorization information, such as authorization codes or the like, to the merchant DEF via the charge settlement network 115. The merchant DEF respondingly accepts payment via the cash card 201. Otherwise, the cash account system 107 denies the transaction and the processor system 113 returns denial information, such as denial codes or the like, to the merchant DEF via the charge settlement network 115.” ([0056])).
Sosa does not disclose, but Liu teaches:
a display for outputting a status of the stored value card (By disclosing, “the merchant membership server 170 checks the validity and expiration date of the card, and replies to the POS terminal 160 with the privileges to which the card holder is entitled. The POS terminal 160 displays the verification result to the store's clerk and the consumer in step 340.” ([0040] of Liu)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Sosa and Moreton, in view of Liu to include a display for outputting a status of the stored value card. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the store’s clerk to acknowledge the status of the card and cancel the transaction if the card is not validated.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sosa (US 20020099607), in view of Moreton (US 20220247741), further in view of Thome (US 10692059).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 14, Sosa does not disclose, but Thome teaches:
wherein the stored value card includes a QR code and the token reader retrieves the token by reading the QR code (By disclosing, “The term “swipe” refers in this description to any manner of triggering a card reader to read a card, such as passing a card through a magnetic stripe reader, smartcard reader, optical code reader, radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, etc. The terms “payment object” or “proxy object” refer in this description to any object that can be used to make an electronic payment, such as a mobile device via a digital wallet application.” (Col 2 line 58- Col 3 line 15 of Thome); and “object 250 can be a magnetic stripe card, a smart card, a proximity card, a re-programmable magnetic stripe card, an card containing an optical code such as a quick response (QR) code or a bar code, or a biometrically identifiable object, such as a finger, a hand, an iris, a retina, or a face, among others.” (Col 8 lines 57-63 of Thome)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Sosa and Moreton, in view of Thome to include techniques of wherein the stored value card includes a QR code and the token reader retrieves the token by reading the QR code. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the token reader to read the card information via various methods.
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 16, Sosa does not disclose, but Thome teaches:
wherein the stored value card includes an embedded passive RFID tag and the token reader retrieves the token by reading the RFID tag. (By disclosing, “The term “swipe” refers in this description to any manner of triggering a card reader to read a card, such as passing a card through a magnetic stripe reader, smartcard reader, optical code reader, radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, etc. The terms “payment object” or “proxy object” refer in this description to any object that can be used to make an electronic payment, such as a mobile device via a digital wallet application.” (Col 2 line 58- Col 3 line 15 of Thome); and “In embodiments where object 250 is a proximity card, object identifier 255 can cause the proximity card to transmit information associated with the proximity card, such as a radio frequency identification (RFID), which object identifier 255 can receive.” (Col 9 lines 62-66 of Thome)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Sosa and Moreton, in view of Thome to include techniques of wherein the stored value card includes an embedded passive RFID tag and the token reader retrieves the token by reading the RFID tag. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the token reader to read the card information via various methods.
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 17, Sosa does not disclose, but Thome teaches:
wherein the stored value card includes an embedded active transmitter and the token reader retrieves the token by receiving a transmitted signal from the transmitter. (By disclosing, “The term “swipe” refers in this description to any manner of triggering a card reader to read a card, such as passing a card through a magnetic stripe reader, smartcard reader, optical code reader, radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, etc. The terms “payment object” or “proxy object” refer in this description to any object that can be used to make an electronic payment, such as a mobile device via a digital wallet application.” (Col 2 line 58- Col 3 line 15 of Thome); and “In embodiments where object 250 is a proximity card, object identifier 255 can cause the proximity card to transmit information associated with the proximity card, such as a radio frequency identification (RFID), which object identifier 255 can receive.” (Col 9 lines 62-66 of Thome)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Sosa and Moreton, in view of Thome to include techniques of wherein the stored value card includes an embedded active transmitter and the token reader retrieves the token by receiving a transmitted signal from the transmitter. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the token reader to read the card information via various methods.
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 19, Sosa does not disclose, but Thome teaches:
wherein the token reader is a smartphone having a dedicated reader software application. (By disclosing, “The term “swipe” refers in this description to any manner of triggering a card reader to read a card, such as passing a card through a magnetic stripe reader, smartcard reader, optical code reader, radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, etc. The terms “payment object” or “proxy object” refer in this description to any object that can be used to make an electronic payment, such as a mobile device via a digital wallet application.” (Col 2 line 58- Col 3 line 15 of Thome)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Sosa and Moreton, in view of Thome to include techniques of wherein the token reader is a smartphone having a dedicated reader software application. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the token reader to read the card information via various methods.
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 20, Sosa does not disclose, but Thome teaches:
wherein the token reader is a scanning device coupled to one or more of: a computer system; or a kiosk.
(By disclosing, “The term “card reader” refers in this description to any object that can be used to obtain information from an object used to make an electronic payment where the card reader must be in the general vicinity of the object, such as an optical scanner, a near field communications device, a Bluetooth communications device, etc.” (Col 2 line 58- Col 3 line 15, and Fig. 3A of Thome)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Sosa and Moreton, in view of Thome to include techniques of wherein the token reader is a scanning device coupled to one or more of: a computer system; or a kiosk. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the computer to generate an authorization request for the transaction based on the card information received.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sosa (US 20020099607), in view of Moreton (US 20220247741), and Tsiounis (WO 0159727).
Regarding claim(s) 24, Sosa does not disclose, but Tsiounis teaches:
wherein the predefined card value and the card identifier are each validated based on the card value information and card identifier information when the stored value card is in the unactivated state before the stored value card is activated. (By disclosing, “If server 104 verifies that an entry having the received card ID and card amount exists in its database (step 610), server 104 may activate the card account (step 612).” (Page 22 lines 3-9 of Tsiounis)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Sosa and Moreton, in view of Tsiounis to include wherein the predefined card value and the card identifier are each validated based on the card value information and card identifier information when the stored value card is in the unactivated state before the stored value card is activated. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would make sure both the predefined card value and the card identifier are legit before activating the card.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2012027664 to Harper for disclosing:
A financial account system includes a stored-value card, a first financial account directly accessible via the stored-value card and a second financial account associated with the first financial account. Funds may be transferred between the first and the second financial account. The transfers between the first and the second financial account may be automatic, recurring, or one-time events and wherein the automatic, recurring, or one-time events may be transacted regardless of a current balance of the first financial account and/or the second financial account. The balances associated with the first and/or the second financial accounts may be used to collateralize loans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 PM.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights