DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to RCE and amendment and response filed on 2/17/26. Claims 1 and 10 were amended. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
102/103: The Applicant’s arguments were fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the reference recited in the previous rejection (Rule) does not teach the amended claims. The Examiner disagrees. An updated search resulted in new references that teach the features of the substantive amended claims (e.g.: modifying card configuration to select a payment instrument, see Seo 1, para. 69, grant read access, see Seo 2, para. 68).
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
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, 7, 9-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200184462 A1 (Rule) in view of US 20140229372 A1 (Seo 1) in further view of US 20140236697 A1 (Seo 2).
As to claim 1,
Rule teaches,
A user card (FIG. 1B, item 130, para. 38 “contactless card”) including a memory (FIG. 1C, item 144, para. 41 “memory”) for storing one or more applications and data associated with the applications (FIG. 1C, items 146, 108, 148, para. 43), the user card comprising:
a first payment application (FIG. 1C, item 146, para. 43 “one or more applets”) associated with first payment card configuration data (FIG. 6, item 622, 624, para. 122 “the PAN must be reissued… communicating this information to the communication/authentication applet on the card in … tap pattern”, para. 124 “the communication/authentication applet, which is configured to recognize the predetermined pattern and interpret this pattern as an instruction to reissue the PAN or identification number”);
receive, from the user device, an input associated with at least one of the first payment application or the second payment application stored on the user card (FIG. 2A, item 204, para. 52 “select the interactable element 204 in order to verify the user's desire to reissue the card number”),
a selection application configured to transmit data associated with the active payment application to a terminal (FIG. 6B, item 632, para. 129 “the payment/transaction applet may confirm 632 the success to the communication/authentication applet”).
Rule does not teach,
a second payment application associated with second payment card configuration data ,
a Near-field-communication Data Exchange Format (NDEF) communication interface configured to directly communicate with a user device:
grant a mobile application on a user device read access to the first payment card configuration data associated with the first payment application and the second payment card configuration data associated with the second payment application,
modify the first and second payment card configuration data associated with the first payment application and the second payment application on the user card based on the input received from the user device, wherein the input sets a status of at least one of the first payment application or the second payment application on the user card to an active payment application ;
however, Seo 1 teaches,
a second payment application associated with second payment card configuration data (FIG. 1, item S4050, para. 69 “select one of payment instrument applets for setting one of stored payment instruments a primary payment instrument or for changing a current primary payment instrument with one of other stored payment instrument”).
modify the first and second payment card configuration data associated with the first payment application and the second payment application on the user card based on the input received from the user device, wherein the input sets a status of at least one of the first payment application or the second payment application on the user card to an active payment application (FIG. 4, item S4050, para. 69 “an update command is transmitted to management applet 320. For example, setup applet 330 executes a function "UPDATE DATA ( )" to control management applet 320 to select one of payment instrument applets for setting one of stored payment instruments a primary payment instrument or for changing a current primary payment instrument with one of other stored payment instrument”).
combination of Rule and Seo 1 do not teach,
a Near-field-communication Data Exchange Format (NDEF) communication interface configured to directly communicate with a user device:
grant a mobile application on a user device read access to the first payment card configuration data associated with the first payment application and the second payment card configuration data associated with the second payment application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment card applet modification of Rule with payment applet section within smart card of Seo 1 because payment applet selection within smart card improves payment card application modification with automating payment instrument selection within a smart card, see Seo 1, para. 70.
however, Seo 2 teaches,
a Near-field-communication Data Exchange Format (NDEF) communication interface configured to directly communicate with a user device (FIG. 3, para. 56 “coupon record types are defined based on a NFC forum data exchange format (NDEF) to store coupons in smart card 200”, para. 112 “Upon the tapping operation, payment terminal 900 transmits coupon data created in a NDEF to credit card 300 with predetermined commands. The coupon data may include a coupon ID, a place ID, a valid time, a URI, and a mobile code. In response to the command, credit card 300 stores the received coupon data in a data file of a NFC tag applet”),
grant a mobile application on a user device read access (para. 68 “when a user taps smart card 200 on user equipment 100 (e.g., tapping operation) and activates an icon associated with the read request for reading a coupon from smart card 200, reader 440 transmits a command to smart card 200 to read coupon data from a NFC tag applet sensed by sensor 420”) to the first payment card configuration data associated with the first payment application and the second payment card configuration data associated with the second payment application (para. 50 “smart card 200, EEPROM 216 may store payment instrument applets in addition to the NFC tag applets for digital coupons“).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment card applet modification of Rule with smart payment card read/write operations using NDEF of Seo 2 because smart payment card read/write operations using NDEF improves payment card application modification with “a digital coupon stored in a plastic smart card may be used to make a payment”, see Seo 2, para. 9.
As to claim 7, combination of Rule, Seo 1 and Seo 2 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rule also teaches,
wherein the user card is a co-badged card (para. 22 “The card's chip may include one or more applets”) and the NDEF communication interface communicates (para. 49 “Applets … respond to … near field data exchange (NDEF) requests”) with the mobile application on the user device (FIG. 2A, item 200, para. 51 “an initial interface 200 for an application associated with the card … which may be displayed on the client device 104”) executing an operating system (para. 123 “Android operating system”).
As to claim 9, combination of Rule, Seo 1 and Seo 2 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rule also teaches,
wherein the data associated with one or more active payment applications is provided to the terminal using a near field communication capability of the user card (para. 27 “the primary account number (PAN) associated with the card 130, which may be read by a reader (such as the NFC reader 110)”).
As to claim 10, combination of Rule, Seo 1 and Seo 2 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rule also teaches,
a system (FIG. 1A, item 100, para. 26 “a data transmission environment”) comprising:
the user card (FIG. 1A, item 130, para. 26) according to claim 1;
a user device (FIG. 1A, item 104, para. 26, item 110, para. 27 “NFC reader”) including a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (para. 57 “a client device 104, which may include an application (which may include the logic 112) and a processor”),
detect the user card (para. 35, “the user taps the card 130 against the NFC reader”);
retrieve, by the mobile application on the user device, the first and second payment card configuration data (FIG. 6, items 622, 624, 630, para. 122, 124, 127) associated with at least the first payment application and the second payment application (para. 49), respectively;
display a first user interface providing a list including at least the first payment application and the second payment application (FIG. 2A, item 200, para. 51);
receive, via the first user interface, an input associated with at least one of the first payment application and the second payment application (para. 52);
re-detect the user card (para. 53 “When the card is brought into proximity with the NFC reader”);
transmit instructions to modify, by the mobile application on the user device, the first and second payment card configuration data (FIG. 6, item 622, 624, 630, para. 122, 124, 127) associated with the first payment application and the second payment application on the user card (FIG. 6B, items 622, 624, para. 125);
display a second user interface indicating whether the data associated with at least the first payment application and the second payment application is successfully modified on the user card (FIG. 2B, para. 53 “a confirmation message 206”).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule in view of Seo 1 in view of Seo 2 in further view of US 20210103915 A1 Top.
As to claim 2, combination of Rule, Seo 1 and Seo 2 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rule does not teach,
wherein the selection application is a Proximity Payment System Environment (PPSE) application with NDEF encapsulation.
however, Top teaches,
wherein the selection application is a Proximity Payment System Environment (PPSE) application with NDEF encapsulation (para. 20 “the payment application 26 on the smart phone 10, acting as a terminal, may attempt to initialize a session with the ICC 12 such as sending a proximity payment system environment (PPSE) request. If the protocol request is blocked by the phone operating system, an alternate communication protocol using the NDEF wrapper 28 may be invoked”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment card applet modification of Rule with smart payment card read/write operations using NDEF of Seo with NDEF and PPSE of Top because NDEF and PPSE improve transaction process failure by providing alternative communication protocols, see Top, para. 20.
As to claim 3, combination of Rule, Seo 1, Seo 2 and Top teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Rule also teaches,
wherein the input is an NDEF write command generated by the mobile application (para. 23 “ write command to the second applet”, para. 49 “Applets may be configured to respond to one or more requests, such as near field data exchange (NDEF) requests”), the NDEF communication interface is further configured to:
update, via the selection application, the status of at least one of the first payment application or the second payment application to the active payment application on the user card (para. 35 “tapping pattern as an instruction to change the PAN”).
Rule does not teach,
translate the NDEF write command into a PPSE update command.
however, Top teaches,
translate the NDEF write command into a PPSE update command (para. 20 “sending a proximity payment system environment (PPSE) request”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment card applet modification of Rule with payment applet selection in smart card of Seo 1 with smart payment card read/write operations using NDEF of Seo 2 with NDEF and PPSE of Top because NDEF and PPSE improve transaction process failure by providing alternative communication protocols, see Top, para. 20.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule in view of Seo 1 and Seo 2 in further view of US 20150286510 A1 (Takeuchi).
As to claim 4, combination of Rule, Seo 1 and Seo 2 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rule does not teach,
wherein the input sets a status of at least one of the first payment application or the second payment application to an inactive payment application, wherein data associated with the inactive payment application is retained from the terminal.
however,
Takeuchi teaches,
wherein the input sets a status of at least one of the first payment application or the second payment application to an inactive payment application (FIG. 1A, para. 46, FIG. 19, item S500, para. 245 “Applet deactivation”), wherein data associated with the inactive payment application is retained from the terminal (para. 245 “deleting the application information corresponding to the application with AID”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment card applet modification of Rule with payment applet selection in smart card of Seo 1 with smart payment card read/write operations using NDEF of Seo 2 with card applet deactivation of Takeuchi because card applet deactivation features improves card security by “deleting the application information corresponding to the application with AID”, see Takeuchi, para. 245.
As to claim 5, combination of Rule, Seo 1, Seo 2 and Takeuchi teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Rule also teaches,
wherein the data associated with one or more active payment applications include data associated with a single active payment application (para. 22 “a payment applet may be activated”).
As to claim 6, combination of Rule, Seo 1 and Seo 2 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rule does not teach,
wherein the input sets a priority status associated with the first payment application and the second payment application, wherein the selection application is further configured to transmit the priority status associated with one or more active payment applications.
however, Takeuchi teaches,
wherein the input sets a priority status associated with the first payment application and the second payment application, wherein the selection application is further configured to transmit the priority status associated with one or more active payment applications (para. 70 “the information processing device according to the embodiment can change the priority level associated with the application information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment card applet modification of Rule with payment applet selection within smart card of Seo 1 with smart payment card read/write operations using NDEF of Seo 2 with card applet deactivation of Takeuchi because card applet deactivation features improves card security by “deleting the application information corresponding to the application with AID”, see Takeuchi, para. 245.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule in view of Seo 1 in view of Seo 2 in further view of US 20130124349 A1 (Khan).
As to claim 8, combination of Rule, Seo 1 and Seo 2 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Rule does not teach,
wherein the first payment application is associated with a first transaction processing network, and the second payment application is associated with a second transaction processing network.
however, Khan teaches,
wherein the first payment application is associated with a first transaction processing network (FIG. 1, items 102, 108, para. 28 “BestBuy credit soft card” and “merchant soft card issuing system server 108 (e.g., a BestBuy host server)”), and the second payment application is associated with a second transaction processing network (FIG. 1, item 110, para. 28 “the Mastercard credit soft card” and “branded soft card issuing system server 110 (e.g., a Mastercard server)”, para. 17 “mobile device 102 may include … a contactless smart card”, para. 18 “PPSE application 126 includes multiple stored application identifiers (AIDs) that respectively identify and correspond to applications (e.g., soft cards)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine payment card applet modification of Rule with payment applet selection within smart card of Seo 1 with smart payment card read/write operations using NDEF of Seo 2 with card applets that correspond to different payment networks of Khan because card applets that correspond to different payment networks features improves payment card application modification by “reduc[ing] the number of physical cards”, see Khan, para. 4.
Conclusion
Reference made of record, not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, includes US 20140027506 A1 (Heo) disclosing multifunction smart card.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights