Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, and 14 are currently amended.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 1: Applicant argues that the amended claims are not merely directed to an economic practice or generic computer payment processing, but instead recite a specific secure-element and token register architecture for managing first-type and second type tokens. Applicant asserts that the claimed transformation, registration, splitting, and merging of second-type tokens solves a technical problem in prior secure element system by reducing token history growth, memory usage, data-transfer burden, transaction duration, and timeout risk.
Response to Remark 1: The arguments are not persuasive because the claims remain directed to the abstract idea of managing monetary value through token generation, splitting, registration, and balance adjustment, which constitutes a method of organizing commercial payment activity. The recited secure elements, token register, and remote computing device are used as generic computer components to perform the claimed accounting and payment-management functions, and the alleged reduction in stored history entries or transaction duration arises from changing the information being recorded rather than improving the operation of the computer or secure element itself.
35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
Remark 1: Applicant argues that amended claim 1 now requires split electronic second-type tokens to share a common registration in a remote token register, while first-type tokens are individually registered, and that Samid does not teach or suggest this architecture. Applicant contends that Samid discloses only one class of bit-currency coin that is split by dividing a bit sequence into sub-sequences, with split coins identified by the remaining bit sequence and split-reference indicator. Applicant further argues that not disclose generating a distinct second-type token of equal value from a first-type token, splitting that generating second-type token into descendants sharing a common registration, or maintaining a registration distinction between first-type and second-type tokens.
Response to Remark 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the cited references (e.g. Samid, Gawlas, Rubin, and Uzo) still teach the currently amended independent claims, as shown at least in paragraphs 14, 26, and 69 of Gawlas, and as further outlined in paragraphs 65-67 of this action. Indeed, applicants arguments are not persuasive because the rejection relies on Samid for the value-bearing electronic coin and value-persevering split operation, and on Gawlas for the remote monitoring/token register architecture used to register and track split token records. (See para. 0066, 0069, 0074-0076) Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-8
Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 1 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of a splitting and sending different types of tokens. 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. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as they recite following rules or instructions. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method performed in a first secure element of an electronic payment transaction system, comprising the steps of:
splitting, by the first secure element, an electronic token having a monetary value into two or more electronic tokens,
wherein the monetary value of the electronic token is equal to the sum of monetary values of the two or more electronic tokens;
sending, by the first secure element, one of the two or more tokens to a second secure element of the electronic payment transaction system;
wherein generating, by the first secure element, an electronic second-type token based on an electronic first-type token,
wherein the electronic first-type token is managed by the first secure element and is ready-to-be-used in the electronic payment transaction system, and
wherein the monetary value of the generated electronic second-type token is equal to the monetary value of the electronic first-type token; and
wherein, in the step of splitting, the generated electronic second-type token is split into two or more electronic second-type tokens
wherein the split electronic second-type tokens share a common registration in the token register of the electronic payment transaction system; and
wherein the electronic first-type tokens are individually registered in the token register of the electronic payment transaction system;
wherein the token register comprises a computing device remote from the first secure element.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 1 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-8 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of binding monetary value to a private value.
electronic second-type tokens comprise a private value and a monetary value, the generated second-type token and the split electronic second-type tokens include the same shared private value; and/or
electronic first-type tokens comprise a private value and a monetary value, wherein a first-type token includes an unique private value.
Claim 3 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of registering tokens.
the first secure element provides a registration request for registering the generated electronic second-type token in a token register of the transaction system; and/or
the split electronic second-type tokens share a common registration in the token register of the electronic payment transaction system.
Claim 4 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of splitting a second-type of token which copies split monetary values.
wherein the split electronic second-type tokens correspond to copies of the generated electronic second-type token each having a respectively split monetary value; and/or
wherein split electronic first-type tokens comprise generated individual data and/or additional data as well as a respectively split monetary value.
Claim 5 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of second-type tokens use.
wherein electronic second-type tokens are dedicated for use in only one or two specific use cases, for offline transactions and/or smart contracts; and/or
wherein electronic first-type tokens can be used in online and offline electronic payment transactions in the electronic payment transaction system.
Claim 6 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of setting issuance and value limits for tokens.
the number of electronic second-type tokens generated by the first secure element per year is below 100; and/or
the number of split electronic second-type tokens sharing a common registration is above 500; and/or
the monetary value of the electronic second-type token send to the second secure element is less than 1/500, of the monetary value of the generated electronic second-type token.
Claim 7 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of an embedded area code and time for a token.
wherein each generated second-type token comprises an area code data as a further token element, wherein the area code data represents one predefined geographic region of the electronic payment transaction system,
wherein each electronic second-type token further comprises a time data as further token element, wherein an automated transmitting of the electronic second-type token to a service provider unit is initiable based on the time data and/or the area code data.
Claim 8 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of linking private and public values to tokens.
wherein the electronic second-type token comprises a private value of a token element pair and wherein a token reference stored in token register comprises a public value of the token element pair, wherein
the private value is a private key of a cryptographic key pair and a public value of a token reference stored in the token register is the corresponding public key of the cryptographic key pair, the cryptographic key pair being generated by the first secure element and/or the token register; or
the private value is identical with the public value and is the result of a Hash-based Message Authentication Code, HMAC, function on the monetary value of the electronic first-type token.
Claims 9-10
Step 1
As per paragraph 7, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the office will interpret “token register” as a “computing device”; the office notes that Applicants specification does not provide support for such an interpretation. As such, Claims 9-10 are directed to a “computing device” (See Applicants Specification, Para. 0018). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 9 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of a generating, splitting, and sending defined-value tokens. 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. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as they recite following rules or instructions. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A secure element for providing electronic second-type tokens, the secure element comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the secure element to:
provide an electronic first-type token having a monetary value,
generate an electronic second-type token based on the electronic first-type token, wherein a defined monetary value of the generated electronic second-type token is equal to the monetary value of the electronic first-type token;
split the generated electronic second-type token into two or more electronic second-type tokens, a split electronic second-type token of the split electronic second-type tokens having the defined monetary value; and
send to the second secure element the split electronic second-type token having the defined monetary value;
wherein the split electronic second-type tokens share a common registration in a token register; and
wherein the electronic first-type tokens are individually registered in the token register;
wherein the token register comprises a computing device remote from the secure element.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 9 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 10 has also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons. Claim 10 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of merging on a private-value match and adding received monetary value.
wherein the secure element is a provisioning secure element of a service provider unit in the transaction system, and the second secure element is a secure element of a participant of the transaction system; and/or
wherein the secure element in subsequent steps uses a previously split electronic second-type token to provide electronic second-type tokens to further secure elements of the transaction system, by respectively splitting the previously split electronic second-type token and sending the further split electronic second-type token to a further secure element; and/or
the secure element being configured in accordance with the features of a method performed in a first secure element of an electronic payment transaction system, comprising the steps of:
splitting, by the first secure element, an electronic token having a monetary value into two or more electronic tokens,
wherein the monetary value of the electronic token is equal to the sum of monetary values of the two or more electronic tokens;
sending, by the first secure element, one of the two or more tokens to a second secure element of the electronic payment transaction system;
wherein generating, by the first secure element, an electronic second-type token based on an electronic first-type token,
wherein the electronic first-type token is managed by the first secure element and is ready-to-be-used in the electronic payment transaction system, and
wherein the monetary value of the generated electronic second-type token is equal to the monetary value of the electronic first-type token; and
wherein, in the step of splitting, the generated electronic second-type token is split into two or more electronic second-type tokens.
Claims 11-13
Step 1
As per paragraph 7, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the office will interpret “token register” as a “computing device”; the office notes that Applicants specification does not provide support for such an interpretation. As such, Claims 11-13 are directed to a “computing device” (See Applicants Specification, Para. 0018). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 11 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of a splitting and merging identical private value tokens. 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. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as they recite following rules or instructions. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A secure element for exchanging electronic second-type tokens, the secure element comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the secure element to:
split one second-type token into two or more second-type tokens, wherein a private values in the two or more second-type tokens are identical to a private value of the second-type token, or
merge the one or more second-type token with another second-type token managed by the secure element and having an identical private value into a merged second-type token; and
transmit the split or merged second-type token to a second secure element;
wherein the split electronic second-type tokens share a common registration in a token register; and
wherein the electronic first-type tokens are individually registered in the token register;
wherein the token register comprises a computing device remote from the secure element.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 11 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 11, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claims 12-13 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 12 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of comparing private values, where if identical, merging and adding monetary value.
wherein upon receiving an electronic second-type token in the secure element, the second secure element compares the private value of the electronic second-type token with private value of electronic second type token elements managed by the second secure element, wherein if the private values are identical, in the step of merging the monetary value of the received electronic second-type token is added to the monetary value of the electronic second-type token managed by the second secure element.
Claim 13 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of negotiating token elements.
wherein a negotiation step between the secure element and the second secure element is performed to identify whether each of the secure element and the second secure element comprise one or more second-type token having at least one identical token element, wherein a token element is one or more of the following items:
a private value;
an area code data;
a time data; and/or
a short-ID data.
Claims 14-15
Step 1
As per paragraph 7, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the office will interpret “token register” as a “computing device”; the office notes that Applicants specification does not provide support for such an interpretation. As such, Claims 14-15 are directed to a “computing device” (See Applicants Specification, Para. 0018). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 14 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of a token registration and recording values. 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. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as they recite following rules or instructions. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A token register for registering tokens of an electronic payment transaction system, the token register comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the token register to:
register electronic first-type tokens and electronic second-type tokens of the electronic payment transaction system;
store a monetary value for a registered token;
wherein for a registered electronic first-type token the token register only accepts full value requests, the full value request including the monetary value of the registered electronic first-type token, wherein the electronic first-type tokens are individually registered in the token register; and
wherein for a registered electronic second-type token the token register accepts a partial value request, the partial value request including a requested partial monetary value, and the token register reduces the monetary value of the registered electronic second-type token by the requested partial monetary value, wherein the electronic second-type tokens share a common registration in a token register.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 14 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 15 has also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons. Claim 15 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The dependent claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of a token registration and storing monetary value.
upon receiving a first-type token replacement request for a registered electronic first-type token, being a full value request, the token register replaces the registration of the registered electronic first-type token by a registration of one or more requested electronic first-type token; and/or
upon receiving a second-type token generation request for a registered electronic first-type token, being a full value request, the token register replaces the registration of the registered electronic first-type token by a registration of a generated electronic second-type token; and/or
upon receiving the partial value request for the registered electronic second-type token, the token register further registers an electronic first-type token having the requested partial monetary value as a monetary value.
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.
Claim 1-5, and 8-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samid et al. (US20080262969A1) in view of Gawlas et al. (US20220215355A1) (hereinafter “Gawlas”).
As per Claim 1, 9, and 11, Samid teaches:
A method performed in a first secure element (“plain computers. . .mobile phone or other limited power computers” (Para. 0386); “server computer[s]” (Para. 0395);
of an electronic payment transaction system, comprising the steps of: splitting, by the first secure element, an electronic token having a monetary value into two or more electronic tokens, wherein the monetary value of the electronic token is equal to the sum of monetary values of the two or more electronic tokens; (“The size-based value of coins which enables this delegation of coin verification is also the foundation of the splitting option for each coin. A hundred dollar coin, comprised of 100,000 bits could be split into two $50 coins, each comprising half of the sequence, namely 50,000 sequential bits. The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015)), “Governing rules will chop off the carried-on size-measured digital coin, and pay the servicing nodes according to preset rules of payment. Some provisions will be put in place what to do if the original coin is exhausted and the message is not yet fully delivered. Similar rules will identify how to split a coin if the message is split. Generally the original coin will be set high enough to support even a long and arduous communications path (many service nodes), with the balance transmitted back to the original node using, say, the central, network, “bank,” which serve as a coin management and mint center. Nodes that over used the system without being switched on sufficient time to collect credit will have either to purchase network money against a hard currency, like US$, or switch themselves on, compete on giving services (thereby making money) to be used for their own needs. The whole operation can be primed with a standard number of coins given to each node. The subsequent transactions will redistribute these bit currencies among the nodes. This network bit money will be either on a stand alone basis, where there is no transfer of debit or credit from anywhere, or linked to another platform for automated payment, or perhaps tied in to US$, so that owners will be able to buy Internet money, and use it in a bidding game to get favorable advantages over high capacity nodes. As mentioned, the split-off of coins is straight forward, because the coin bit count expresses its value.” (Para. 0022), “These are coins that would accept new coin bits. They act more like an electronic wallet (and often so called), since they are devices that can be used to pay a coin or a split thereof, and to add more coins up to the device capacity. These coins pose a special security threat since the payee can not be sure that the bits therein are not a fraudulent entry. Yet, they are convenient, especially for micropayments.” (Para. 0103))
sending, by the first secure element , one of the two or more tokens to a second secure element of the electronic payment transaction system; (“(1) string value is expressed through string length, not through its bits identities, which are used to distinguish between coins and to enable easy, independent coin splitting, and delegated asynchronous payment authentication; (2) instant payment between online strangers, (3) secure as desired access to online bank accounts, (4) Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network enabler, (5) Transaction related services: proof of delivery, cash on delivery, etc.” (Para. 0002)), “This invention alleviates this single source burden by creating a verification or authentication hierarchy. The original single source (call it also the ultimate source of coin verification) will project into 2, or say n first level sub-sources. Each sub-source will receive a partial cut from the master coin database. The cut can be two ways. One: coin count. Every sub-source will receive some of the coins to construct its sub-database with. The other way is by divulging to the sub-source only some of the bit identities of each coin. So, if a 100$ coin is comprised of 100,000 bits, then the sub-source might be given the identity of say every other bit. So the sub-source will know 50,000 bits out of the 100,000. It is important to spread the known bits evenly across the coin, because it may be split off, and then for some coin section submitted for verification, the sub-source verifier will have no knowledge what so ever.” (Para. 0010), “The digital coin may be carried through a physical device. The device will need to fit into a coin reader that would be able to read its id, and image, and send it to the Mint for verification.” (Para. 0092))
wherein generating, by the first secure element , an electronic second-type token based on an electronic first-type token, (“These bit-currency transactional trust tools (T3) are based on digital coins, comprised of a header containing meta information, and a body containing a random-looking bit sequence, the length of which is proportional to its value. Thereby a coin can be split by creating two coins each with a value proportioned bit count. The bit size of the coin will be large enough to enable its use through a hierarchy of authentication where lower nodes in the authentication hierarchy have sufficient information to tentatively authenticate a coin, but not sufficient information to defraud the higher up node. This will allow instant transactions and asynchronous authentication.” (Para. 0002)), “The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015)
wherein the electronic first-type token is managed by the first secure element and is ready-to-be-used in the electronic payment transaction system, and wherein the monetary value of the generated electronic second-type token is equal to the monetary value of the electronic first-type token; and wherein, in the step of splitting, the generated electronic second-type token is split into two or more electronic second-type tokens. (“The size-based value of coins which enables this delegation of coin verification is also the foundation of the splitting option for each coin. A hundred dollar coin, comprised of 100,000 bits could be split into two $50 coins, each comprising half of the sequence, namely 50,000 sequential bits. The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015), “Governing rules will chop off the carried-on size-measured digital coin, and pay the servicing nodes according to preset rules of payment. Some provisions will be put in place what to do if the original coin is exhausted and the message is not yet fully delivered. Similar rules will identify how to split a coin if the message is split. Generally the original coin will be set high enough to support even a long and arduous communications path (many service nodes), with the balance transmitted back to the original node using, say, the central, network, “bank,” which serve as a coin management and mint center. Nodes that over used the system without being switched on sufficient time to collect credit will have either to purchase network money against a hard currency, like US$, or switch themselves on, compete on giving services (thereby making money) to be used for their own needs. The whole operation can be primed with a standard number of coins given to each node. The subsequent transactions will redistribute these bit currencies among the nodes. This network bit money will be either on a stand alone basis, where there is no transfer of debit or credit from anywhere, or linked to another platform for automated payment, or perhaps tied in to US$, so that owners will be able to buy Internet money, and use it in a bidding game to get favorable advantages over high capacity nodes. As mentioned, the split-off of coins is straight forward, because the coin bit count expresses its value.” (Para. 0022), “These are coins that would accept new coin bits. They act more like an electronic wallet (and often so called), since they are devices that can be used to pay a coin or a split thereof, and to add more coins up to the device capacity. These coins pose a special security threat since the payee can not be sure that the bits therein are not a fraudulent entry. Yet, they are convenient, especially for micropayments.” (Para. 0103); (“These bit-currency transactional trust tools (T3) are based on digital coins, comprised of a header containing meta information, and a body containing a random-looking bit sequence, the length of which is proportional to its value. Thereby a coin can be split by creating two coins each with a value proportioned bit count. The bit size of the coin will be large enough to enable its use through a hierarchy of authentication where lower nodes in the authentication hierarchy have sufficient information to tentatively authenticate a coin, but not sufficient information to defraud the higher up node. This will allow instant transactions and asynchronous authentication.” (Para. 0002)), “The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015).
Samid does not disclose:
• “wherein the split electronic second-type tokens share a common registration in the token register of the electronic payment transaction system; and wherein the electronic first-type tokens are individually registered in the token register of the electronic payment transaction system; wherein the token register comprises a computing device remote from the first secure element.” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 5, Gawlas in the analogous art of tokenized transactions, teaches: “wherein the split electronic second-type tokens share a common registration in the token register of the electronic payment transaction system; and wherein the electronic first-type tokens are individually registered in the token register of the electronic payment transaction system; wherein the token register comprises a computing device remote from the first secure element”. (See “a registration request preferably comprises: exactly one masked electronic coin data record to be registered and exactly one registered masked electronic coin data record, or at least two masked split modified electronic coin data records to be registered (and the masked received electronic coin data record).” (Para. 0014); “A method according to the invention in a monitoring entity that stores valid masked electronic coin data records, each of which is formed by applying a homomorphic one-way function to an electronic coin data record, wherein electronic coin data records include a monetary amount and a concealment amount, comprises in particular the steps of: receiving a registration request comprising at least one masked electronic coin data record to be registered and at least one registered masked electronic coin data record.” (Para. 0026); “the monitoring entity is a remote entity. Thus, for example, it is intended to establish a communication connection to the monitoring entity for registering the electronic coin data record.” (Para. 0069))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the capabilities taught in Gawlas to the system of Samid in order to provide a token register comprising a computing device remote from the first secure element, wherein electronic first-type tokens are individually registered in the token register and split electronic second-type tokens share a common registration in the token register. Therefore, the incentives of preventing double spending provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 2, Samid teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein electronic second-type tokens comprise a private value and a monetary value, the generated second-type token and the split electronic second-type tokens include the same shared private value; and/or electronic first-type tokens comprise a private value and a monetary value, wherein a first-type token includes an unique private value. (“the identity of the bits is used to distinguish one such digital coin from the other. . .Each coin is comprised of that body string as described above, and a header that contains information regarding coin identifier, payment conditions, and suchlike.” (Abstract), “The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015), “digital coins, comprised of a header containing meta information, and a body containing a random-looking bit sequence, the length of which is proportional to its value. Thereby a coin can be split by creating two coins each with a value proportioned bit count. The bit size of the coin will be large enough to enable its use through a hierarchy of authentication where lower nodes in the authentication hierarchy have sufficient information to tentatively authenticate a coin, but not sufficient information to defraud the higher up node.” (Para. 0002))
As per Claim 3, Samid teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first secure element provides a registration request for registering the generated electronic second-type token in a token register of the transaction system; and/or the split electronic second-type tokens share a common registration in the token register of the transaction system; and/or electronic first-type tokens are individually registered in the token register of the transaction system. (“The original single source (call it also the ultimate source of coin verification) will project into 2, or say n first level sub-sources. Each sub-source will receive a partial cut from the master coin database. The cut can be two ways. One: coin count. Every sub-source will receive some of the coins to construct its sub-database with. The other way is by divulging to the sub-source only some of the bit identities of each coin. So, if a 100$ coin is comprised of 100,000 bits, then the sub-source might be given the identity of say every other bit. So the sub-source will know 50,000 bits out of the 100,000. It is important to spread the known bits evenly across the coin, because it may be split off, and then for some coin section submitted for verification, the sub-source verifier will have no knowledge what so ever.” (Para. 0010)), “The Mint is a source, an authority, that issues digital coins, and subsequently redeems them. The Mint builds the system of random bits currency, runs and operates it, and it sustains itself by earning the trust of its traders. The Mint can be a government organ, or, preferably, a commercial entity. The Mint keeps a database of all coins issued. The database lists the coin image in association with the coin identifier, coin attributes, and optionally more data. The key challenge for the Mint is the trust of its traders.” (Para. 0079), “A given “mint” will thus be able to mint (issue) coins of varying denominations, and hand them over to online or off-line users who would buy such coins by paying the corresponding value in US dollars, or any other acceptable currency. Any trader who so purchased a digital coin would be able to transfer that sequence as a method of payment for any transaction he or she could make. Here we reach the point of trust. The payee will need to verify that the sequence of bits he is getting (the digital coin) is in fact redeemable. That is, he or she could approach the mint with that sequence, and receive the corresponding amount in US dollars. After all the payer could have minted his own coin, and falsely proclaim that it was minted by the mint. The way for the payee to verify the authenticity of the coin just paid is by contacting the mint and getting their assurance that the coin is valid, and that the user could redeem it anytime he wishes to. Here we come at the second element of this invention. A trader verifying a coin could demand from the mint to exchange the verified coin with a new one (same value, different bit identity). The mint will then invalidate the verified sequence, so that if anyone checks on it, it would come back as ‘invalid’, (hence the payer cannot reuse the same coin again), and the verifier will get a brand new sequence for him to use. It's important to note that the mint (also referred to as ‘the bank’) would not have to verify the identity of the coin verifier. It would work like cash, the coin itself is verified, but its holder may remain anonymous.” (Para. 0008))
As per Claim 4, Samid teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the split electronic second-type tokens correspond to copies of the generated electronic second-type token each having a respectively split monetary value; and/or wherein split electronic first-type tokens comprise generated individual data and/or additional data as well as a respectively split monetary value.; (“The size-based value of coins which enables this delegation of coin verification is also the foundation of the splitting option for each coin. A hundred dollar coin, comprised of 100,000 bits could be split into two $50 coins, each comprising half of the sequence, namely 50,000 sequential bits. The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015)), “We can therefore define the concept of a digital coin, of any desired denomination, and which is comprised of meta data describing various parameters thereof, and also describes its payload, or ‘body,’ or contents—the string that would identify the value of the coin.” (Para. 0006), “A coin can be split into two parts by dividing its bit sequence into two sequences without disturbing the bits order. Thus a coin comprised of v bits will be divided into a sequence of v1 bits, and a complementary sequence of v2 bits, such that: v=v1+v2 And the order of bits in the v1, and v2 sequences is the same as the order in the v sequence. If the pre-split coin had no payment qualifier, then neither the split coins will have one. If the pre-split coin was associated with a payment identifier, that identifier is passed along to the split coins. If the pre-split coin was encrypted, then it must first be decrypted before it can be split, and the split coins will have a choice to be encrypted, or not. The split coin will be identified by the remaining bit sequence, and a split-reference-indicator (SRI). The SRI will indicate the split location. The ease and convenience of coin splitting will allow one to purchase a large denomination coin, and split small coins from it as need arises. The receiving trader will take a hold of the split paid coin, and the paying trader will hold on to the other split. This split operation raises some security concerns:—1. payment disputes—2. guessing small coins.” (Para. 0132)).
As per Claim 5, Samid teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein electronic second-type tokens are dedicated for use in only one or two specific use cases, for . . . and/or smart contracts; and/or wherein electronic first-type tokens can be used in online and . . . electronic payment transactions in the transaction system.; (“Two online strangers could transact and make a payment by using the PINprivate procedure where by the strangers create a temporary secret which is sufficient for the payee to access the online location with the payment, and empty it before any third party can steal it; the temporary secret is based on the payer pre-calculating several computational tasks allowing the payee to randomly choose a task to compute, and communicating the identity of the chosen task (the temporary secret) by sending back the result.” (Abstract)), “allow an online account holder, who was given a PIN offline to authenticate himself to get access to his account, to so do without allowing visibility of the PIN itself to the online community, rather proving to the account custodian who needs to verify and authenticate the account holder that the PIN is in the possession of the claimant account holder.” (Claim 3), “This procedure enables asynchronic verification, because any sub-source OKs a coin based only on knowledge of part of its bits. The Ok travels up to the single source ultimate verification at some later point in time. Should there be any mishaps, and the unknown bits don't match the single source listing, then the mint which takes its cut from every minted coin will take the loss for it. Since one could change the number of bits known to each level, it is possible to manage this off chance.” (Para. 0014))
Samid does not disclose:
• “offline transactions” (claim 5).
However, as per Claim 5, Gawlas in the analogous art of tokenized transactions, teaches: “offline transactions”. (See “the direct payment transaction layer without a connection to the checking entity, in particular when the terminal is offline.” (Para. 0053); “The steps of receiving the electronic coin data record and sending the registration request may, in particular, be carried out independently of one another at different times (e.g. receive now and register later/(the day after) tomorrow). . . the steps described may also initially be carried out without the step of sending the registration request (and of registering at the monitoring entity)” (Para. 0021); “The communication between two terminals may be carried out in a wireless or wired, or, for example, also optical manner, preferably via QR code or barcode, and may be configured as a secure channel.” (Para. 0055))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the transaction-limiting capabilities taught in Gawlas to the smart coin system of Samid in order to improve transaction security, enable offline verification, or comply with operational constraints. Gawlas provides a known method (token policy metadata) and predictable benefit (restricted usage), which when applied to Samid’s known token system yields the expected result of use-case-limited digital tokens.
As per Claim 8, Samid teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the electronic second-type token comprises a private value of a token element pair and wherein a token reference stored in a token register comprises a public value of the token element pair, wherein the private value is a private key of a cryptographic key pair and a public value of a token reference stored in the token register is the corresponding public key of the cryptographic key pair, the cryptographic key pair being generated by the first secure element and/or the token register; or the private value is identical with the public value and is the result of a Hash-based Message Authentication Code, HMAC, function on the monetary value of the electronic first-type token. (“The coin attributes may be in the clear and/or encrypted to retard unauthorized alterations. The encryption may be carried out via a private Mint key, so that it can be readily verified by trader's using the Mint's public key.” (Para. 0050); “The common application of public key secrecy calls for one party, “the server” to be sophisticated enough to feature its unique well designed public/private keys pair, while the other party may be unsophisticated” (Para. 0386); “Bob could send Alice a random sequence encrypted with her public key. Alice will decrypt it with her private key, and then both will use the shared random sequence as a symmetric key to communicate the SLS through it.” (Para. 0386); (1) string value is expressed through string length, not through its bits identities, which are used to distinguish between coins and to enable easy, independent coin splitting, and delegated asynchronous payment authentication.” (Para. 0002)), “PUBLIC KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR SECRET SHARING Bob would send Alice his public key. Alice would use that key to encrypt their shared secret, and Bob would use his private key to decrypt it. Eve, without the secret private key will remain in the dark, and unable to steal the money. Bob will then access the trading account, using the secret password Alice just sent him, and immediately change it so that Alice will lose her access to the paid sum.” (Para. 0334), “PINprivate can be activated ad-hoc, by any two parties, regardless of their sophistication and the quality of their computer. Alice and Bob, using PINprivate could download the necessary software, just before the exchange. They have no need to be ready with a secure pair of private/public keys, there is nothing to steal, nothing to be done ahead of time. Two strangers may decide on the spur of the moment to have a monetary transaction, and PINprivate will enable them.” (Para. 0344))
As per Claim 9, Samid teaches:
A secure element for providing electronic second-type tokens, wherein the secure element (“plain computers. . .mobile phone or other limited power computers” (Para. 0386); “server computer[s]” (Para. 0395);
comprises an electronic first-type token having a monetary value, the secure element for providing to a second secure element an electronic second-type token having a defined monetary value is configured to: generate an electronic second-type token based on the electronic first-type token, (“These bit-currency transactional trust tools (T3) are based on digital coins, comprised of a header containing meta information, and a body containing a random-looking bit sequence, the length of which is proportional to its value. Thereby a coin can be split by creating two coins each with a value proportioned bit count. The bit size of the coin will be large enough to enable its use through a hierarchy of authentication where lower nodes in the authentication hierarchy have sufficient information to tentatively authenticate a coin, but not sufficient information to defraud the higher up node. This will allow instant transactions and asynchronous authentication.” (Para. 0002)), “The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015)
wherein the monetary value of the generated electronic second-type token is equal to the monetary value of the electronic first-type token; split the generated electronic second-type token into two or more electronic second-type tokens, a split electronic second-type token of the split electronic second-type tokens having the defined monetary value; and (“The size-based value of coins which enables this delegation of coin verification is also the foundation of the splitting option for each coin. A hundred dollar coin, comprised of 100,000 bits could be split into two $50 coins, each comprising half of the sequence, namely 50,000 sequential bits. The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015)), “Governing rules will chop off the carried-on size-measured digital coin, and pay the servicing nodes according to preset rules of payment. Some provisions will be put in place what to do if the original coin is exhausted and the message is not yet fully delivered. Similar rules will identify how to split a coin if the message is split. Generally the original coin will be set high enough to support even a long and arduous communications path (many service nodes), with the balance transmitted back to the original node using, say, the central, network, “bank,” which serve as a coin management and mint center. Nodes that over used the system without being switched on sufficient time to collect credit will have either to purchase network money against a hard currency, like US$, or switch themselves on, compete on giving services (thereby making money) to be used for their own needs. The whole operation can be primed with a standard number of coins given to each node. The subsequent transactions will redistribute these bit currencies among the nodes. This network bit money will be either on a stand alone basis, where there is no transfer of debit or credit from anywhere, or linked to another platform for automated payment, or perhaps tied in to US$, so that owners will be able to buy Internet money, and use it in a bidding game to get favorable advantages over high capacity nodes. As mentioned, the split-off of coins is straight forward, because the coin bit count expresses its value.” (Para. 0022), “These are coins that would accept new coin bits. They act more like an electronic wallet (and often so called), since they are devices that can be used to pay a coin or a split thereof, and to add more coins up to the device capacity. These coins pose a special security threat since the payee can not be sure that the bits therein are not a fraudulent entry. Yet, they are convenient, especially for micropayments.” (Para. 0103))
send to the second secure element the split electronic second-type token having the defined monetary value. (“(1) string value is expressed through string length, not through its bits identities, which are used to distinguish between coins and to enable easy, independent coin splitting, and delegated asynchronous payment authentication; (2) instant payment between online strangers, (3) secure as desired access to online bank accounts, (4) Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network enabler, (5) Transaction related services: proof of delivery, cash on delivery, etc.” (Para. 0002)), “This invention alleviates this single source burden by creating a verification or authentication hierarchy. The original single source (call it also the ultimate source of coin verification) will project into 2, or say n first level sub-sources. Each sub-source will receive a partial cut from the master coin database. The cut can be two ways. One: coin count. Every sub-source will receive some of the coins to construct its sub-database with. The other way is by divulging to the sub-source only some of the bit identities of each coin. So, if a 100$ coin is comprised of 100,000 bits, then the sub-source might be given the identity of say every other bit. So the sub-source will know 50,000 bits out of the 100,000. It is important to spread the known bits evenly across the coin, because it may be split off, and then for some coin section submitted for verification, the sub-source verifier will have no knowledge what so ever.” (Para. 0010), “The digital coin may be carried through a physical device. The device will need to fit into a coin reader that would be able to read its id, and image, and send it to the Mint for verification.” (Para. 0092))
As per Claim 10, Samid teaches:
The secure element of claim 9, wherein the secure element is a provisioning secure element of a service provider unit in the transaction system, and the second secure element is a secure element of a participant of the transaction system; and/or (“A circulator is a trader who circulates a given coin into the market. He is the first trader to use that coin. He gets the coin directly from the Mint or from a reseller. The circulator may be anonymous or eponymous. He or she may get their coin within a physical device, or electronically.” (Para. 0086); “The digital coin may be carried through a physical device. The device will need to fit into a coin reader that would be able to read its id, and image, and send it to the Mint for verification. Also, for low security applications the coin will be designed to input coin data through a coin-writer. . . These are devices that are written once, and the data on them can not be changed. Such coins must be traded as a whole.” (Para. 0092-0096); “Alice and Bob are two perfect strangers, wishing to trade online. They may use the PINprivate procedure, defined as follows: Alice prepares a list of n cryptographic keys, and posts them on the web. She also prepares, and communicates to Bob n computational tasks that are expected to last t seconds each to compute (on Bob's standard computer). Bob chooses one of the n tasks, and computes it. He sends the result back to Alice. Alice who prepared the computational tasks ahead of time, also computed ahead of time, the results of those n tasks. When Bob sends her back the answer to the tasks he chose randomly, Alice checks it against her list of n results, and finds out which of the tasks, Bob chose to compute. That choice, i, then points both Alice and Bob to the cryptographic key key(i) from the key list mentioned above. That key becomes a temporary shared secret between Alice and Bob.” (Para. 0017)
wherein the secure element in subsequent steps uses a previously split electronic second-type token to provide electronic second-type tokens to further secure element of the transaction system, by respectively splitting the previously split electronic second-type token and sending the further split electronic second-type token to a further . . .; and/or (“The size-based value of coins which enables this delegation of coin verification is also the foundation of the splitting option for each coin. A hundred dollar coin, comprised of 100,000 bits could be split into two $50 coins, each comprising half of the sequence, namely 50,000 sequential bits. The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015)), “Governing rules will chop off the carried-on size-measured digital coin, and pay the servicing nodes according to preset rules of payment. Some provisions will be put in place what to do if the original coin is exhausted and the message is not yet fully delivered. Similar rules will identify how to split a coin if the message is split. Generally the original coin will be set high enough to support even a long and arduous communications path (many service nodes), with the balance transmitted back to the original node using, say, the central, network, “bank,” which serve as a coin management and mint center. Nodes that over used the system without being switched on sufficient time to collect credit will have either to purchase network money against a hard currency, like US$, or switch themselves on, compete on giving services (thereby making money) to be used for their own needs. The whole operation can be primed with a standard number of coins given to each node. The subsequent transactions will redistribute these bit currencies among the nodes. This network bit money will be either on a stand alone basis, where there is no transfer of debit or credit from anywhere, or linked to another platform for automated payment, or perhaps tied in to US$, so that owners will be able to buy Internet money, and use it in a bidding game to get favorable advantages over high capacity nodes. As mentioned, the split-off of coins is straight forward, because the coin bit count expresses its value.” (Para. 0022), “These are coins that would accept new coin bits. They act more like an electronic wallet (and often so called), since they are devices that can be used to pay a coin or a split thereof, and to add more coins up to the device capacity. These coins pose a special security threat since the payee can not be sure that the bits therein are not a fraudulent entry. Yet, they are convenient, especially for micropayments.” (Para. 0103))
the secure element being configured in accordance with the features of a method performed in a first secure element of an electronic payment transaction system, comprising the steps of: splitting, by the first secure element , an electronic token having a monetary value into two or more electronic tokens, (“Coins may be joint, and may be split. Either process may be done as book-keeping, or as a physical action. Joining coins, and splitting coins offers transactional flexibility and convenience.” (Para. 0128)
wherein the monetary value of the electronic token is equal to the sum of monetary values of the two or more electronic tokens; (“These bit-currency transactional trust tools (T3) are based on digital coins, comprised of a header containing meta information, and a body containing a random-looking bit sequence, the length of which is proportional to its value. Thereby a coin can be split by creating two coins each with a value proportioned bit count.” (Para. 0002)
sending, by the first secure element , one of the two or more tokens to a second secure element of the electronic payment transaction system; (“(1) string value is expressed through string length, not through its bits identities, which are used to distinguish between coins and to enable easy, independent coin splitting, and delegated asynchronous payment authentication; (2) instant payment between online strangers, (3) secure as desired access to online bank accounts, (4) Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network enabler, (5) Transaction related services: proof of delivery, cash on delivery, etc.” (Para. 0002)), “This invention alleviates this single source burden by creating a verification or authentication hierarchy. The original single source (call it also the ultimate source of coin verification) will project into 2, or say n first level sub-sources. Each sub-source will receive a partial cut from the master coin database. The cut can be two ways. One: coin count. Every sub-source will receive some of the coins to construct its sub-database with. The other way is by divulging to the sub-source only some of the bit identities of each coin. So, if a 100$ coin is comprised of 100,000 bits, then the sub-source might be given the identity of say every other bit. So the sub-source will know 50,000 bits out of the 100,000. It is important to spread the known bits evenly across the coin, because it may be split off, and then for some coin section submitted for verification, the sub-source verifier will have no knowledge what so ever.” (Para. 0010), “The digital coin may be carried through a physical device. The device will need to fit into a coin reader that would be able to read its id, and image, and send it to the Mint for verification.” (Para. 0092))
wherein generating, by the first secure element , an electronic second-type token based on an electronic first-type token, (“These bit-currency transactional trust tools (T3) are based on digital coins, comprised of a header containing meta information, and a body containing a random-looking bit sequence, the length of which is proportional to its value. Thereby a coin can be split by creating two coins each with a value proportioned bit count. The bit size of the coin will be large enough to enable its use through a hierarchy of authentication where lower nodes in the authentication hierarchy have sufficient information to tentatively authenticate a coin, but not sufficient information to defraud the higher up node. This will allow instant transactions and asynchronous authentication.” (Para. 0002)), “The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015)
wherein the electronic first-type token is managed by the first secure element and is ready-to-be-used in the electronic payment transaction system, and wherein the monetary value of the generated electronic second-type token is equal to the monetary value of the electronic first-type token; and wherein, in the step of splitting, the generated electronic second-type token is split into two or more electronic second-type tokens. (“The size-based value of coins which enables this delegation of coin verification is also the foundation of the splitting option for each coin. A hundred dollar coin, comprised of 100,000 bits could be split into two $50 coins, each comprising half of the sequence, namely 50,000 sequential bits. The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015), “Governing rules will chop off the carried-on size-measured digital coin, and pay the servicing nodes according to preset rules of payment. Some provisions will be put in place what to do if the original coin is exhausted and the message is not yet fully delivered. Similar rules will identify how to split a coin if the message is split. Generally the original coin will be set high enough to support even a long and arduous communications path (many service nodes), with the balance transmitted back to the original node using, say, the central, network, “bank,” which serve as a coin management and mint center. Nodes that over used the system without being switched on sufficient time to collect credit will have either to purchase network money against a hard currency, like US$, or switch themselves on, compete on giving services (thereby making money) to be used for their own needs. The whole operation can be primed with a standard number of coins given to each node. The subsequent transactions will redistribute these bit currencies among the nodes. This network bit money will be either on a stand alone basis, where there is no transfer of debit or credit from anywhere, or linked to another platform for automated payment, or perhaps tied in to US$, so that owners will be able to buy Internet money, and use it in a bidding game to get favorable advantages over high capacity nodes. As mentioned, the split-off of coins is straight forward, because the coin bit count expresses its value.” (Para. 0022), “These are coins that would accept new coin bits. They act more like an electronic wallet (and often so called), since they are devices that can be used to pay a coin or a split thereof, and to add more coins up to the device capacity. These coins pose a special security threat since the payee can not be sure that the bits therein are not a fraudulent entry. Yet, they are convenient, especially for micropayments.” (Para. 0103); (“These bit-currency transactional trust tools (T3) are based on digital coins, comprised of a header containing meta information, and a body containing a random-looking bit sequence, the length of which is proportional to its value. Thereby a coin can be split by creating two coins each with a value proportioned bit count. The bit size of the coin will be large enough to enable its use through a hierarchy of authentication where lower nodes in the authentication hierarchy have sufficient information to tentatively authenticate a coin, but not sufficient information to defraud the higher up node. This will allow instant transactions and asynchronous authentication.” (Para. 0002)), “The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015).
As per Claim 11, Samid teaches:
A secure element (“plain computers. . .mobile phone or other limited power computers” (Para. 0386); “server computer[s]” (Para. 0395);
for exchanging electronic second-type tokens, the secure element being configured for splitting one second-type token into two or more second-type tokens, wherein the private values in the two or more second-type tokens are identical to the private value of the second-type token, or (“The size-based value of coins which enables this delegation of coin verification is also the foundation of the splitting option for each coin. A hundred dollar coin, comprised of 100,000 bits could be split into two $50 coins, each comprising half of the sequence, namely 50,000 sequential bits. The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015)), “Governing rules will chop off the carried-on size-measured digital coin, and pay the servicing nodes according to preset rules of payment. Some provisions will be put in place what to do if the original coin is exhausted and the message is not yet fully delivered. Similar rules will identify how to split a coin if the message is split. Generally the original coin will be set high enough to support even a long and arduous communications path (many service nodes), with the balance transmitted back to the original node using, say, the central, network, “bank,” which serve as a coin management and mint center. Nodes that over used the system without being switched on sufficient time to collect credit will have either to purchase network money against a hard currency, like US$, or switch themselves on, compete on giving services (thereby making money) to be used for their own needs. The whole operation can be primed with a standard number of coins given to each node. The subsequent transactions will redistribute these bit currencies among the nodes. This network bit money will be either on a stand alone basis, where there is no transfer of debit or credit from anywhere, or linked to another platform for automated payment, or perhaps tied in to US$, so that owners will be able to buy Internet money, and use it in a bidding game to get favorable advantages over high capacity nodes. As mentioned, the split-off of coins is straight forward, because the coin bit count expresses its value.” (Para. 0022), “These are coins that would accept new coin bits. They act more like an electronic wallet (and often so called), since they are devices that can be used to pay a coin or a split thereof, and to add more coins up to the device capacity. These coins pose a special security threat since the payee can not be sure that the bits therein are not a fraudulent entry. Yet, they are convenient, especially for micropayments.” (Para. 0103))
merging the one or more second-type token with another second-type token managed by the secure element and having an identical private value into a merged second-type token; and (“Alice and Bob will combine the two shared secret to a single one, by concatenation or otherwise. So doing will encumber Eve with the requirement to chase both Bob and Alice's computational tasks.” (Para. 0389); “The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015)
transmitting, by the secure element , the split or merged second-type token to a second secure element . (“(1) string value is expressed through string length, not through its bits identities, which are used to distinguish between coins and to enable easy, independent coin splitting, and delegated asynchronous payment authentication; (2) instant payment between online strangers, (3) secure as desired access to online bank accounts, (4) Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network enabler, (5) Transaction related services: proof of delivery, cash on delivery, etc.” (Para. 0002)), “This invention alleviates this single source burden by creating a verification or authentication hierarchy. The original single source (call it also the ultimate source of coin verification) will project into 2, or say n first level sub-sources. Each sub-source will receive a partial cut from the master coin database. The cut can be two ways. One: coin count. Every sub-source will receive some of the coins to construct its sub-database with. The other way is by divulging to the sub-source only some of the bit identities of each coin. So, if a 100$ coin is comprised of 100,000 bits, then the sub-source might be given the identity of say every other bit. So the sub-source will know 50,000 bits out of the 100,000. It is important to spread the known bits evenly across the coin, because it may be split off, and then for some coin section submitted for verification, the sub-source verifier will have no knowledge what so ever.” (Para. 0010), “The digital coin may be carried through a physical device. The device will need to fit into a coin reader that would be able to read its id, and image, and send it to the Mint for verification.” (Para. 0092)).
As per Claim 12, Samid teaches:
The secure element of claim 11, wherein upon receiving an electronic second-type token in the secure element , the second secure element compares the private value of the electronic second-type token with private value of electronic second type token elements managed by the second secure element , wherein if the private values are identical, in the step of merging the monetary value of the received electronic second-type token is added to the monetary value of the electronic second-type token managed by the second secure element . (“(1) string value is expressed through string length, not through its bits identities, which are used to distinguish between coins and to enable easy, independent coin splitting, and delegated asynchronous payment authentication.” (Para. 0002)), “PUBLIC KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR SECRET SHARING Bob would send Alice his public key. Alice would use that key to encrypt their shared secret, and Bob would use his private key to decrypt it. Eve, without the secret private key will remain in the dark, and unable to steal the money. Bob will then access the trading account, using the secret password Alice just sent him, and immediately change it so that Alice will lose her access to the paid sum.” (Para. 0334), “PINprivate can be activated ad-hoc, by any two parties, regardless of their sophistication and the quality of their computer. Alice and Bob, using PINprivate could download the necessary software, just before the exchange. They have no need to be ready with a secure pair of private/public keys, there is nothing to steal, nothing to be done ahead of time. Two strangers may decide on the spur of the moment to have a monetary transaction, and PINprivate will enable them.” (Para. 0344))
As per Claim 13, Samid teaches:
The secure element of claim 11, wherein a negotiation step between the secure element and the second secure element is performed to identify whether each of the secure element and the second secure element comprise one or more second-type token having at least one identical token element, wherein a token element is one or more of the following items: a private value; an area code data; a time data; and/or a short-ID data. (“The recipient can use the token to purchase a product using the payment provider. The purchase can be made from a brick and mortar store or an online store. The purchase can be made without requiring the user to create the user's own payment provider account.” (Para. 0008), “During a purchase transaction, the customer can present the token to the merchant. The token can be presented either along with or in place of a password. Both software and hardware tokens can be used to make purchases. Software tokens are typically stored in an electronic device, such as a computer or cellular telephone. Hardware tokens can be embodied in a hardware device, such as a USB device or a smart card.” (Para. 0004-0005), “Such limitations can include limitations regarding the store(s) where the token can be used, the product(s) that can be purchased with the token, an expiration time/date for the token, the geographic area(s) where the token can be used, and/or the time(s) at which the token can be used. For example, the token can be limited to use at a specified store, a specified group of stores, or a specified chain of stores. The token can be limited to use for purchasing a specified product or type of product. The token can be limited to use geographically. For example, the token can be limited to use within a specified city or group of cities, within a specified state or group of states, within a specified country or group of countries, and/or at any location or group of locations. Use of the token can be limited to use temporarily. For example, the token can be limited to use on weekdays, on weekends, from 11:00 AM to 1:00 on weekdays, and/or at any other time.” (Para. 0040); “FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an example of a computer that is suitable for use in the system for real-time . . . negotiation” (Para. 0023); “computer system 400 suitable for implementing one or more embodiments of the present disclosure. In various implementations, the PIN pad and/or merchant terminal may comprise a computing device (e.g., a personal computer, laptop, smart phone, tablet, PDA, Bluetooth device, etc.) capable of communicating with the network. The merchant and/or payment provider may utilize a network computing device (e.g., a network server) capable of communicating with the network. It should be appreciated that each of the devices utilized by users, merchants, and payment providers may be implemented as computer system 400” (Para. 0073).
As per Claim 14, Samid teaches:
A token register for registering tokens of an electronic payment transaction system, wherein the token register registers electronic first-type tokens and electronic second-type tokens of the electronic payment transaction system; wherein the token register for a registered token stores a monetary value; (“A coin holder may provide an anchor id which will be tied to his or her actual identity. Such id may be an official issue or biometric identifier. Official issue id may be a credit card number, a bank account, an organizational membership id, like a serial military number, a driving license, or some other license number etc. A biometric identifier may be finger print, palm print, retinal data, DNA, etc.” (Para. 0064); “the identity of the bits is used to distinguish one such digital coin from the other, and for enabling an authentication hierarchy that alleviates the bottleneck of having a single source coin authentication for all transactions in coins issued (minted) by that mint; also enabling an instant split of a coin by simply splitting off a portion of the string of the coin, such that the bit count of the split-off string reflects its value. Each coin is comprised of that body string as described above, and a header that contains information regarding coin identifier, payment conditions, and suchlike. Such bit currency can be carried around everywhere bits are handled, and may be encrypted as necessary.” (Abstract); “Customers will be able to control their anonymity, and for large coins they might wish to trade their anonymity against security. They will then register the coin with their name and arrange that only when a biometric identification took place will there be a transaction from that coin. An interim arrangement is that a coin holder will register with the Mint through a personally selected PIN (personal identification number). The PIN will then be necessary for coin transaction.” (Para. 0170)
wherein for a registered electronic first-type token the token register only accepts full value requests, the full value request including the monetary value of the registered electronic first-type token; and (“Each coin can be identified per its name as to the value of a single bit thereof. One bit could be worth one cent (to be called the nominal valuation), or one bit could be worth $1000, or more. The valuation rate of a bit is affected by security considerations, and payment convenience. Security is carried by the identity of the bits. Obviously to carry $2000 in a valuation where 1 bit=$1000, would reduce the coin to a 2 bit expression, for which one would have 25% chance for correct guessing. However, for transactions of millions of dollars, such bit valuation may be acceptable security-wise. The advantage of high bit valuation is the small size of the coin. A small size may be an advantage when one wishes to hide the coin, or to make a payment through a channel with limited capacity or limited transmission time. High bit valuation may be fit for a niche situation where to two financial centers exchange large amounts of money between them. High valuation will reduce transmission load, and security may be enhanced through bilateral symmetric encryption. Convenience relates to the ability to split a coin to any desired value. Obviously the nominal resolution of 1 bit=1 cent allows for payment of any amount, from the set minimum (security wise) up to the full value of the coin.” (Para. 0207); “This risk may be handled through: limits on coin value in this system [and/or] legal pursuit of the account holder” (Para. 0229)
wherein for a registered electronic second-type token the token register accepts a partial value request, the partial value request including a requested partial monetary value, and the token register reduces the monetary value of the registered electronic second-type token by the requested partial monetary value.; (“A sequence of v bits is defined as a digital coin of value v. Each coin is associated with a coin identifier, Cid, and some attributes. The only part of the coin that is to be kept secret is the coin image—the identity of the coin bits. We further discuss:—the coin bits—the coin identifier—the coin attributes.” (Para. 0045)), “The size-based value of coins which enables this delegation of coin verification is also the foundation of the splitting option for each coin. A hundred dollar coin, comprised of 100,000 bits could be split into two $50 coins, each comprising half of the sequence, namely 50,000 sequential bits. The split can be at any ratio up to the smallest tradable denomination, say, for instance $1.00. A trader will be able to handle one large coin, say for $1000, and chop out of it strings corresponding to the amount to be paid. The data of the original coin that spawned this sub-coin will be carried in the split-off coins' headers as meta tags.” (Para. 0015), “Let us assume that the Mint wishes to give partial bit identification to a child, at a proportion of ?=0.80. Since the parent node is the Mint, we have u=6 (all the bits are known to the Mint). And so: U=int(? u+0.5)=int(0.80*6)=into (5.3)=5 Beginning with v=0, (the imaginary prebit of the coin), the Mint will now activate a random number generator to select 5 bits out of the next six: bits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The selection indicated: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6. The Mint now forms the partial coin image to be handed down to its child.” (Para. 0156))
As per Claim 15, Samid teaches:
The token register of claim 14, further configured to: upon receiving a first-type token replacement request for a registered electronic first-type token, being a full value request, the token register replaces the registration of the registered electronic first-type token by a registration of one or more requested electronic first-type token; and/or upon receiving a second-type token generation request for a registered electronic first-type token, being a full value request, the token register replaces the registration of the registered electronic first-type token by a registration of a generated electronic second-type token; and/or upon receiving the partial value request for the registered electronic second-type token, the token register further registers an electronic first-type token having the requested partial monetary value as a monetary value.; (“The ClearBIT money is in the form of a bit string that carries its own value. Thus ClearBIT money can be sent over the net, can be stored anywhere, can be moved around, chopped to smaller digital coins, and can be shared, and transferred. Users would be able to load their P2P-currency on a USB stick, and use the P2P services from any desired location, node. Users in an office, with say, an Intranet, would be able to pool P2P currency so that not every computer would have to stay online, but all computers could use the P2P service. This currency sharing option would open the possibility for currency trade. Participants who accumulated a great wealth of P2P currency (by staying connected for a long time), with a great bandwidth, and with a lot of data storage made available, would be able to advertise on a dedicated board, to be put up by the ClearBIT company. Thus users who would need the currency in a hurry, and have no currency reserves would be able to purchase (for, say, dollars) the excessive currency of other users.” (Para. 0486)), “A method as in (1) allowing a user to open a payment string to an online vendor charging micropayments by chopping off appropriate number of bits from the presented digital coin, since the bit count represent value, such “chopping” can be done at any minute resolution (e.g. 1 cent) as desired.” (Claim 1.3), “Transacting digital goods is a special case for bit currency. By using the currency as an encryption key, the buyer will submit the coin header (from a coin in his or her possession) to the seller. The seller will send the header along with the goods to be sold to the Mint (that issues these coins) to be encrypted. The digital goods are thus encrypted with the contents of the coin, the buyer claims to possess. This would happen after the mint verifies that the coin is valid (not fabricated, and not already used). The Mint will send back the encrypted goods to the seller, and he, or the Mint directly, will send the encrypted file to the buyer.” (Para. 0023))
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samid in view of Gawlas in further view of Uzo et al. (US20030061170A1) (hereinafter “Uzo”).
As per Claim 6, Samid teaches:
The method of claim 1, . . .
Samid does not disclose:
“wherein the number of electronic second-type tokens generated by the first secure element per year is below 100; and/or the number of split electronic second-type tokens sharing a common registration is above 500; and/or the monetary value of the electronic second-type token send to the second secure element is less than 1/500, of the monetary value of the generated electronic second-type token” (claim 6).
However, as per Claim 6, Uzo in the analogous art of secured electronic payments between parties, teaches: “wherein the number of electronic second-type tokens generated by the first secure element per year is below 100; and/or the number of split electronic second-type tokens sharing a common registration is above 500; and/or the monetary value of the electronic second-type token send to the second secure element is less than 1/500, of the monetary value of the generated electronic second-type token”. (See “the clearing server does not send the whole token to a requesting merchant but instead creates and sends a fraction of it to the merchant. This is called a fractional token. A fractional token does not have the entire monetary value of the consumer but only a fraction of it.” (Para. 0031); “a request from that merchant to the clearing server for the consumer's token results in the creation of a fractional token. The fractional token that the merchant receives will have a value that may equal but not exceed the spending limit set for that consumer at that merchant.” (Para. 0031); “the clearing server creates a token which does not hold the entire money balance of the consumer but instead holds a fraction of it equal to the consumer's spending limit for that merchant. . . The fractional token downloaded to the merchant has a value that is equal to or less than the spending limit for the particular consumer.” (Para. 0032); “denominations that can be as small as fractions of one cent” (Para. 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Samid with the technique of Uzo to transmit arbitrarily small partial token using Gawlas split/send mechanism while preserving total value as taught by Uzo. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased transaction security between the parties provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samid in view of Rubin et al. (US20020073045A1) (hereinafter “Rubin”).
As per Claim 7, Samid teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein each generated second-type token comprises an area code data as a further token element, wherein the . . . data represents one predefined geographic region of the electronic payment transaction system, wherein each electronic second-type token further comprises a time data as further token element, wherein an automated transmitting of the electronic second-type token to the service provider unit is initiable based on the time data and/or the . . . data. (“The user can specify a money amount, a recipient, and any desired limitations or suggestions regarding the token, as shown in step 202. Such limitations can include limitations regarding the store(s) where the token can be used, the product(s) that can be purchased with the token, an expiration time/date for the token, the geographic area(s) where the token can be used, and/or the time(s) at which the token can be used. For example, the token can be limited to use at a specified store, a specified group of stores, or a specified chain of stores. The token can be limited to use for purchasing a specified product or type of product. The token can be limited to use geographically. For example, the token can be limited to use within a specified city or group of cities, within a specified state or group of states, within a specified country or group of countries, and/or at any location or group of locations. Use of the token can be limited to use temporarily. For example, the token can be limited to use on weekdays, on weekends, from 11:00 AM to 1:00 on weekdays, and/or at any other time.” (Para. 0040), “The token can expire after a specified amount of time. For example, the token can expire after one day, five days, one week, three weeks, or one month from the date of issuance. The token can have a different value depending on any specified criteria. For example, the token can decline in value from the date of issuance until a specified date in the future. The token can have one value if used at a specified store and another value if used at any other store. The token can have one value if used to purchase a specified product and another value if used to purchase any other product. A limit can be placed on how quickly the token can be spent. For example, the token can be limited to purchases totaling $50 per day, purchases totaling $600 per week, or purchases totaling $2,000 per month.” (Para. 0042-0044)
Samid does not disclose:
• “area code” (claim 7).
However, as per Claim 7, Rubin in the analogous art of token-based payment systems, teaches: “area code”. (See “Other restrictions can involve the time of day, the area code and/or exchange called, the number of minutes, the number of calls permitted, etc.” (Para. 0026); “The device then outputs a new calling card number, which is in fact an encrypted token containing the selected restrictions. . . When a user enters the token, the system uses the identifying information to look up the user's account number, derive a key, and then decrypt the token to check the restrictions.” (Para. 0025))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Samid with the technique of Rubin to encode geographic (e.g. area code) and temporal attributes directly into Samid’s transaction actions and to trigger automated transmission/processing of those tokens based on those attributes. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased token security provided reason for the adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20210400493A1 (Korkmaz), discussing “the invention proposes a method for transferring a MSISDN allocated to a subscription from a first to a second secure element, the method comprising: during an enrolment phase of the first secure element cooperating with a terminal, transferring from the first secure element to a remote server, a hash called hash (SecretInfo_1), of a secret information entered by a user in the terminal and the MSISDN of the subscription of the user; Store the hash (SecretInfo_1) associated to this MSISDN in the server; When the second secure element is for the first time activated in a terminal, after the user having entered the MSISDN to be transferred and the secret information, the second information being hashed and called hash (SecretInfo_2) for the second secure element: Compare the hash (SecretInfo_1) and the hash (SecretInfo_2) and if the hash (SecretInfo_2) corresponds to the hash (SecretInfo_1) for this MSISDN, assigning at the level of the operator network a subscription identifier of the second secure element to the MSISDN.” (Para. 0007-0011); See also “Preferably, the first or second secure elements are one of: A UICC, A eUICC, A iUICC, A device application, A trusted execution environment” (Para. 0014-0019).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A. Jimenez whose telephone number is (571) 270-3080. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached on 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.
/Justin Jimenez/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights