DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the claims filed 11/04/2024.
Claims 1-17 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application PCT/IL2023/050615 under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) is acknowledged and granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/04/2024 has been received, considered as indicated, and placed on record in the file.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of verifying payment validity without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method, and independent claims 5 and 9 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a machine (terminal / device). As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A method for verifying payment validity executed by a wireless device comprising:producing a Public-Private key pair by a crypto wallet; generating a payment token that includes a public key of said Public-Private key pair; transmitting said payment token to a payment terminal at a point of sale; wherein said payment terminal is configured to generate a payment request that includes a transaction information message of a payment and the payment token and to transmit thereafter the payment request to an at least one backend platform; generating a transaction verification message by said at least one back-end platform based on said transaction information message; providing the transaction verification message to a device associated with said public key of said payment token; signing said transaction verification message with a private key of said public-private key pair and sending the signed transaction verification message to said at least one back-end platform; verifying ownership of said first public key by comparing a public key of the transaction verification message signed by said wireless device against said public key included in the payment request message generated by said payment terminal, by the at least one back-end platform; approving said payment with a customer platform of an at least one financing entity; informing any of said payment terminal, wireless device, and said customer platform of payment verification result by said at least one back-end platform by sending a transaction confirmation message from said at least one back-end platform”.
Claim 5 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A payment terminal comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising program instructions for verifying payment validity, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors cause the payment terminal to: receive a payment token issued by a software development kit (SDK) located at a wireless device, wherein the payment token includes a public key of a pair of Public-Private keys produced by a crypto wallet; generate a payment request that includes a transaction information message and said payment token, and transmit said payment request to an at least one back-end platform; and receive a payment and a transaction confirmation message from said at least one back-end platform based on a payment approval generated by said at least one back-end platform; wherein verifying ownership of said public key is done by at least one back-end platform based on comparison of the public key of the transaction verification message signed by a private key of the Public-Private key pair in the wireless device and the public key included in the payment request generated by said payment terminal”.
Claim 9 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A wireless device comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media having installed an application comprising program instructions for verifying payment validity wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors results in: producing a Public-Private key pair by a crypto wallet; generating a payment token comprising a public key of said Public-Private key pair; transmitting said payment token to a payment terminal of said point of sale; receiving a transaction information message from said payment terminal; receiving a transaction verification message from at least one backend platform; based on comparison of a transaction information message received from said payment terminal and said transaction verification message generated by said at least one back-end platform, signing said transaction verification message with a private key of said public-private key pair, and sending said signed transaction verification message to said at least one back-end platform; and receiving a transaction confirmation after verifying ownership of said public key based on comparison of the public key of the signed transaction verification message and said payment token by said at least one backend platform”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Verifying payment validity is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a wireless device; producing a Public-Private key pair; transmitting; payment terminal; backend platform; generating a transaction verification message; a device; one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media; one or more processors; a software development kit (SDK) located at a wireless device. However, the specification description of the additional elements a wireless device ([Figure 1, element 100] [0095]); producing a Public-Private key pair ([0088]); transmitting ([0063] [0122] [0124] [0134]); payment terminal ([Figure 1, element 120] [0074]); backend platform ([Figure 1, element 120] [0074]); generating a transaction verification message ([0094-0102]); a device ([Figure 1, element 100] [0095]); one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media ([Figure 5, element 510] [0126]); one or more processors ([0037] [0071]); a software development kit (SDK) located at a wireless device (([Figure 1, element 105] [0043] [0071]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10-17 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 6, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. In addition, the cited dependent claims recite the additional elements:
receive said payment token via an at least one of: a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) communication, a short-range radio communication and a Near Field Communication (NFC) (claim 6).
However, the specification description of the additional elements receive said payment token via an at least one of: a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) communication, a short-range radio communication and a Near Field Communication (NFC) ([0009] [0040] [0043] [0067] [0071] [0074] [0086] [0088]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. The closest prior art is Lee (PGPub Document No. 20160125402). However, the invention in Lee does not teach producing a Public-Private key pair by a crypto wallet (Lee discloses that the Public key is transmitted to the wallet by the payment device which is used by the mobile device to generated the payment token); signing said transaction verification message with a private key of said public-private key pair and sending the signed transaction verification message to said at least one back-end platform (Lee discloses that the Private keys is transmitted to the payment server as part of the payment token and not as part of signed transaction verification message); verifying ownership of said first public key by comparing a public key of the transaction verification message signed by said wireless device against said public key included in the payment request message generated by said payment terminal, by the at least one back-end platform (Lee discloses that the payment server verifies a digital signature but the public key verification is part of the initial payment request data). Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Safak (US Patent No. US 11227284 B2) – teaches a method for consumer-initiated transactions with encrypted tokens includes: storing a first cryptographic key pair comprising an account public key and an account private key, a merchant public key, an account token associated with a transaction account, an account identifier, and an issuing institution identifier; receiving transaction data for a proposed payment transaction including a transaction amount; generating a transaction order including the transaction data; generating a cryptographic checksum for the generated transaction order; generating a digital signature over the cryptographic checksum using the account private key; generating a payment token including the issuing institution identifier, the account identifier, the transaction amount, and the account token; encrypting the payment token using the account private key; and transmitting the encrypted payment token and signed cryptographic checksum to a point of sale device
Law (PGPub No. 20240362622 ) – teaches systems and methods are provided that allows users to execute a secure transaction that is authenticated by their digital wallet on their user device. A device-bound digital wallet authentication process includes first registering data with a user device, a network tokenization server, a card issuer server, a digital coordination and notification (DCN) server, and an access control server. The data includes a network-device token and an alias of a primary account number that are stored on the user device, the network tokenization server, and the card issuer server. The data also includes a notification token, a signing public key and the alias that are stored on the DCN server and the access control server. In the device-bound digital wallet authentication, the alias and the network-device token are used to securely authenticate the user device and transaction information associated with the digital wallet that is bound to the user device.
Cassano (PGPub No. US 20150254640 A1) – teaches technology for a standalone digital currency wallet generator for improved security. The digital currency wallet generator includes a print button, a processor and an internal printer. The print button generates a print signal in response to a user activating the print button. The processor generates a private key and a public key in response to the print signal, without any input signal received outside of the digital currency wallet generator. The private key and the public key form a digital currency wallet. The internal printer prints out a paper wallet. The paper wallet including information of the public key and the private key.
Lee (PGPub No. 20160125402) – teaches methods and devices for payment using token are provided, one of methods comprises, receiving a public key and a payment device token from a payment device, creating a digital signature through encryption of the payment device token and a stored user token using the public key, and payment request data including the digital signature, transmitting the payment request data to the payment device and updating the user token through performing of a token update operation.
Zhang (PGPub No. 20120089507) – teaches a device integrated with payment function and collection function, includes a smart memory card and an intelligent terminal. The intelligent terminal is adapted to generate a secure transaction management instruction, send the secure transaction management instruction to the smart memory card and notify an execution result of the secure transaction management instruction; to interact with a bank side system via a remote communication network; to interact with user via a user interface; to interact with another device in near field communication mode; to process transaction instruction, generate a secure transaction application instruction and send the secure transaction application instruction to the smart memory card; and to notify an execution result of the secure transaction application instruction. The smart memory card is adapted to execute the safe transaction management instruction and the safe transaction application instruction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
03/04/2026