DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/4/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to RCE, amendment and response filed on 8/4/26. Claims 1, 7 and 16-25 were amended. Claims 1 and 7-25 are pending and examined..
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting: rescinded because of terminal disclaimer filed on 8/4/26.
101: The Applicant amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
pp. 8-10
The Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements that are significantly more because presenting/displaying on a token (e.g.: a smart card) information (e.g.: location specific credit card number), presenting the information on LCD/LED display on the token (e.g.: the smart card) and activating the display of the token (e.g.: the smart card) and using the display to present the information do not improve technology.
None of the amended additional elements, individually or in combination w/ previous additional elements and/or the abstract idea, improve technology. They merely provide an improvement to the business process of payment security by displaying credit card information on a display of a smart payment card. As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a token based on a user location and utilizing the token in commerce.
As such, the rejection is maintained. An updated rejection addressing the amended claims is provided below.
103: The Applicant amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the references cited in the previous rejection do not teach the amended limitations.
The Examiner disagrees.
Previously cited reference US 20200410314 A1 (Stahlhut) teaches presenting/displaying on a token (e.g.: a smart card) information (e.g.: location specific credit card number), presenting the information on LCD/LED display on the token (e.g.: the smart card) and activating the display of the token (e.g.: the smart card) and using the display to present the information (see para. 90, 93).
As such, the rejection is maintained. An updated rejection addressing the amended claims is provided.
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 and 7-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite an apparatus (claim 1), a process (claims 7-15) and an article of manufacture (claims 16-25). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 (from claims 1, 7 and 16) is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of creating a token based on a user location and utilizing the token in commerce, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A system for generating and displaying location-specific card identifiers to access a resource at a corresponding location, the system comprising:
one or more processors and memories comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations comprising:
presenting on a token associated with a user, wherein the token comprises one or more user interface elements associated with generating the location-specific card identifiers and wherein the token comprises a credit card, a debit card, a payment card, a wallet card, a smart card, or a travel pass;
obtaining, (i) location information indicating a first location when a location-specific card identifier is generated and (ii) creation time information indicating a time at which the location-specific card identifier is generated;
generating the location-specific card identifier that corresponds to (i) the location information and (ii) the creation time information;
selecting between an inactive state and an active state for the location- specific card identifier; and
in response to selecting the active state for the location-specific card identifier subsequent to storing the location-specific card identifier, generating for display the location-specific card identifier on the token in response to detecting that the user device is at a location corresponding to the first location.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A system [for … and] displaying […], the system comprising”, “one or more processors and memories comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations comprising”, “presenting on a token associated with a user, wherein the token comprises one or more user interface elements associated with […] and wherein the token comprises […], a wallet card, a smart card, […]”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“selecting between an inactive state and an active state for the location-specific card identifier”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the “one or more processors” selects between “an inactive state and an active state for the location-specific card identifier”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“… storing the location-specific card identifier, [generating] for display, […] on a second user interface of the user device in response to detecting that the user device is at a location corresponding to the first location”. “storing the location-specific card identifier” and “display, […] on the token in response to detecting that the user device is at a location corresponding to the first location” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, “detecting that the user device is at a location corresponding to the first location” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how the “the user device” is detected “at a location corresponding to the first location”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a token based on a user location and utilizing the token in commerce.
Continuing the analysis with dependent claims 8 and 17, the claims recited “selecting, from a set of stored location-specific card identifiers, the location- specific card identifier to be generated for display, based at least in part on the location-specific card identifier determined to be in the active state”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“selecting, […] for display, based at least in part on [the location-specific card identifier] determined to be in the active state”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the technological details of how “… card identifier” is selected based on the card identifier “determined to be in the active state”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a token based on a user location and utilizing the token in commerce.
Dependent claim 9 recites “receiving a request to generate the location-specific card identifier” “in response to receiving the request, presenting the location-specific card identifier via a liquid crystal display (LCD), light emitting diode (LED) display on the token”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements of:
“presenting the location-specific card identifier via a liquid crystal display (LCD), light emitting diode (LED) display on the token” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a token based on a user location and utilizing the token in commerce.
Dependent claims 10 and 22 recite “generating for display, on the second user interface of the user device, one or more graphical elements depicting the location-specific card identifier”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements of:
“generating for display, on the second user interface of the user device, one or more graphical elements” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a token based on a user location and utilizing the token in commerce.
Dependent claims 12 and 23 recite “wherein generating for display the location-specific card identifier on the token further comprises”, “activating an electrophoretic display on the token” and “using the electrophoretic display to present the location-specific card identifier”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements of:
“[…] display […] on the token …”, “activating an electrophoretic display on the token” and “using the electrophoretic display to present the location-specific card identifier” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a token based on a user location and utilizing the token in commerce.
Dependent claim 25 recite “wherein the user interface is a user payment terminal”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements of:
“the user interface is a user payment terminal” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” because they are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using “a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), and/or the claim fails to recite the technological details of “how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of creating a token based on a user location and utilizing the token in commerce.
Continuing the analysis with dependent claims, claims 11, 13-15, 18-21 and 24, recite additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 7-25 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200410314 A1 (Stahlhut) in view of US 20210182833 A1 (Singh).
As to claim 1, 7 and 16,
Stahlhut recites,
presenting on a token (para. 183 “smart card”) associated with a user, wherein the token comprises one or more user interface elements (FIG. 900, item 902, para. 177 “Smart card 810 is shown displaying sensitive data 814 formatted as a credit card number on first display”) associated with generating location-specific card identifiers (para. 90 “The processor may activate sensitive data based on a location of the smart card”, para. 93, 95 “the sensitive data presented by the smart card may include information typically included on a conventional credit or debit cards. Such information may include a card number”), and wherein the token comprises a credit card, a debit card, a payment card, a wallet card, a smart card, or a travel pass (para. 21 “a smart card that enhances security of sensitive data included on conventional cards typically carried by user in a wallet. Conventional cards may include credit cards, debit cards, passports, checks, driver's license and insurance cards. The smart card may be a credit-card-size device”);
obtaining, via user inputs on the first user interface, (i) location information indicating a first location when a location-specific card identifier is generated and (ii) creation time information indicating a time at which the location-specific card identifier is generated (para. 63 “Establishing the communication link may confirm that the smart card is within a predetermined distance of the mobile device”, para. 71 “sensitive data stored on the smart card may be activated. For example, the location of the mobile device may correspond to a known location of a medical office. In such a known location, the mobile device may authorize activation of sensitive data”, para. 73 “The one-time code may be used for a single transaction in a specific location and/or within a specific time interval. The one-time code may be generated based on sensitive data stored on the smart card”);
in response to receiving the user inputs, generating the location-specific card identifier that corresponds to (i) the location information and (ii) the creation time information (para. 73 “para. 73 “The one-time code may be used for a single transaction in a specific location and/or within a specific time interval. The one-time code may be generated based on sensitive data stored on the smart card”);
selecting between an inactive state and an active state for the location-specific card identifier (para. 77 “the smart card may receive an override instruction from the mobile phone. The override instruction may activate otherwise inactive second sensitive data stored on the smart card”, para. 73 “The one-time code may be used for a single transaction in a specific location and/or within a specific time interval. The one-time code may be generated based on sensitive data stored on the smart card”); and
in response to selecting the active state for the location-specific card identifier (para. 77) subsequent to storing the location-specific card identifier (para. 88 “The smart card may include a processor circuit… sensitive data may be stored in the processor circuit ”), [generating for display, the location-specific card identifier on a second user interface of the user device in response to detecting that the user device is at a location corresponding to the first location].
Stahlhut does not teach,
[subsequent …], generating for display, the location-specific card identifier on a second user interface of the user device in response to detecting that the user device is at a location corresponding to the first location.
however, Singh teaches,
[…], generating for display (para. 29 “a graphical user interface (GUI), configured to provide an interface to the user when accessing transaction processor 130, where the user or other users may interact with the GUI to more easily view and communicate information”), the location-specific card identifier on a second user interface of the user device in response to detecting that the user device is at a location corresponding to the first location (para. 18 “providing a payment for transaction processing at a location. Payment card 110 may be configured to determine if the location is an authorized location. If so, payment card 110 may allow the card data to be read by card reader”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the location based transaction security of Stahlhut with the location restricted access enforced by the smart card of Singh because the location restricted access enforced by the smart card improves the transaction security by preventing unauthorized access outside present locations as enforced by the card (see Singh, para. 10).
Additionally, with respect to claim 1,
Stahlhut teaches,
a system …, the system (para. 40) comprising,
one or more processors and memories comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations (para. 40) comprising
Additionally, with respect to claim 16,
Stahlhut teaches,
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations (para. 51) comprising.
As to claims 8 and 17, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claims 7 and 16.
Stahlhut does not teach,
selecting, from a set of stored location-specific card identifiers, the location-specific card identifier to be generated for display, based at least in part on the location-specific card identifier determined to be in an active state.
however, Singh teaches,
selecting, from a set of stored location-specific card identifiers, the location-specific card identifier to be generated for display, based at least in part on the location-specific card identifier determined to be in an active state (para, 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the location based transaction security of Stahlhut with the location restricted access enforced by the smart card of Singh because the location restricted access enforced by the smart card improves the transaction security by preventing unauthorized access outside present locations as enforced by the card (see Singh, para. 10).
As to claims 9 and 21, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claims 7 and 16.
Stahlhut also teaches,
receiving a request to generate the location-specific card identifier (para. 90 “The processor may activate sensitive data based on a location of the smart card”);
in response to receiving the request, presenting the location-specific card identifier via a liquid crystal display (LCD), light emitting diode (LED) display on the token (para. 90 “The processor may activate sensitive data based on a location of the smart card… . Activating sensitive data may include displaying the sensitive data using the array of OLEDs”, para. 93, 95 “the sensitive data presented by the smart card may include information typically included on a conventional credit or debit cards. Such information may include a card number”).
As to claims 10 and 22, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claims 7 and 16.
Stahlhut also teaches,
generating for display, on the second user interface of the user device, one or more graphical elements depicting the location-specific card identifier (para. 90).
As to claims 11 and 24, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claims 7 and 16.
Stahlhut also teaches,
receiving a request to generate the location-specific card identifier (para. 90)
generating for display, on the token, a message associated with use of the location-specific card identifier (para. 90 “Desired sensitive data may be determined based on the location of the mobile device… Activating sensitive data may include displaying the sensitive data using the array of OLEDs”).
As to claim 12, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claim 7.
Stahlhut also teaches,
generating for display the location-specific card identifier on the token (para. 90) further comprises:
activating an electrophoretic display on the token; and using the electrophoretic display to present the location-specific card identifier (para. 90 “Desired sensitive data may be determined based on the location of the mobile device… Activating sensitive data may include displaying the sensitive data using the array of OLEDs”).
As to claims 13 and 18, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claims 7 and 16.
Stahlhut also teaches,
wherein the location information is a geographic location (para. 90, 93), and wherein generating the location-specific card identifier (para. 90, 93) further comprises:
determining the geographic location corresponding to a creation location at which the token is located when the location-specific card identifier is generated (para. 90, 93); and
generating the location-specific card identifier based on the geographic location (para. 90, 93).
As to claim 14, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claim 7.
Stahlhut also teaches,
wherein the location information is a user-defined location (para. 90, 93),
wherein generating the location-specific card identifier (para. 90, 93) further comprises:
receiving the user-defined location via the first user interface (para. 90, 93);
generating the location-specific card identifier based on the user-defined location (para. 90, 93).
As to claims 15 and 20, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claims 7 and 16.
Stahlhut also teaches,
wherein the location information is a merchant location (para. 90, 93),
wherein generating the location-specific card identifier (para. 90, 93) further comprises:
determining the merchant location based on a merchant identifier associated with a request (para. 90, 93);
generating the location-specific card identifier based on the merchant location (para. 90, 93).
As to claim 19, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claim 16.
Stahlhut also teaches,
wherein the location information is a user-defined location (para. 90, 93),
wherein generating the location-specific card identifier (para. 90, 93) further comprises:
receiving the user-defined location via the token (para. 90, 93);
generating the location-specific card identifier based on the user-defined location (para. 90, 93).
As to claim 23, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claim 16 and 22.
Stahlhut also teaches,
generating for display the location-specific card identifier on the token (para. 90) further comprises:
activating an electrophoretic display on the token (para. 90); and
using the electrophoretic display to present the location-specific card identifier (para. 90).
As to claim 25, combination of Stahlhut and Singh teach all the limitations of claim 16 and 24.
Stahlhut also teaches,
wherein the user interface (para. 90) is a user payment terminal (FIG. 7, item 701, para. 177 “merchant POS terminal”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights