Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
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 in reply to the Amendment filed on May 5, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260604 for references purposes only.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20 recite “controlling rendering, on the electronic display screen.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “controlling rendering, on an electronic display screen.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “receiving through the human interface device.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “receiving through a human interface device.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a backend computer server, upon receiving the redemption data message (124), processes the redemption data message (124) and releases a reservation corresponding to the reserving in the one or more data records of the quantity of payment tokens corresponding to the full payment for the duration of time.” This phrase renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the scope of the claim is drawn to the subcombination of "a point of sale computing device" alone, or drawn to the combination of “a point of sale computing device" and “a backend computer server.”
Based on the preamble of claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably conclude that the claim is directed to the subcombination alone because the preamble states “A point of sale computing device.” Furthermore, dependent claims 2-10 are drawn to “the point of sale computing device (102) of claim 1.”
Alternatively, the body of claim 1 recites “wherein a backend computer server, upon receiving the redemption data message (124), processes the redemption data message (124) and releases a reservation corresponding to the reserving in the one or more data records of the quantity of payment tokens corresponding to the full payment for the duration of time.” Based upon this language, claim 1 is directed to the combination of “a point of sale computing device" and “a backend computer server.”
Because a potential infringer of claim 1 would not know whether direct infringement required creation or possession of the subcombination alone (i.e. “a point of sale computing device”) or the combination of “a point of sale computing device” and “a backend computer server”, claim 1 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112 2nd paragraph.
If Applicant intends to claim only the subcombination “a point of sale computing device” in claim 1, then he should remove all positive recitations of “a backend computer server” from the body of the claim. Alternatively, if Applicant intends to claim the combination of “a point of sale computing device” and “a backend computer server”, then he should amend the preamble to objectively set forth his intent.
Claims 1-10 are vague and indefinite because they include purely functional limitations without corresponding structure. Specifically, the specification does not clearly link or associate structure(s) for these limitations:
“a processor configured to: receive… validate… control… receive… transmit… options” in claim 1.
Please see Claim Interpretation below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 10-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Theurer et al. (US 2017/0372301) in view of Pi Farias et al. (US 2020/0402049).
Claims 1, 11, 20
Theurer discloses:
a computer memory (108) (memory, see [0265]);
an electronic display screen (110) (display, see [0281]) displaying the interactive user interface (104);
a human interface device (112) (mobile device, see [0158]) for receiving user interface inputs from a user;
non-transitory computer readable storage media (114) (tangible medium, see [0266]);
a processor (116) (processor, see [0265]) configured to:
the payment token data structure including at least one data field indicative of a linkage with a third party remote database (122) (wallet server, see [0082]) storing one or more data records corresponding to one or more alternative payment options;
validate, through communication of secure messaging with an application programming interface of the third party remote database (122) (wallet server retrieves user record, preferences, and permissions, see [0082]), a confirmed enrollment and an availability of the one or more alternative payment options (payment methods the user has approved, see [0082]) on the one or more data records;
control rendering (renders the received message, see [0083]), on the electronic display screen (110), the one or more interactive graphical user interface controls (106) (display to the user, see [0083]), the one or more interactive graphical user interface controls (106) corresponding to the one or more alternative payment options and providing a prompt for the user to select either a partial payment (partial payment, see [0050]) or a full payment (full payment, see [0050]) using the one or more alternative payment options;
receive, through the human interface device (112), an indication that the user has selected either the partial payment (partial payment, see [0050]) or the full payment (full payment, see [0050]) using the one or more alternative payment options;
wherein the secure messaging with the application programming interface of the third party remote database (122) includes establishing a secure channel (secure hypertext transfer protocol, see [0076]) using a secure cryptographic handshake for authenticating an identity of the user;
wherein the at least one data field indicative of the linkage with a third party remote database (122) includes at least one cryptographic secret that enables a limited authentication of the identity of the user (customer ID, see [0080]), and the at least one cryptographic secret (RSA private key, see [0285]) is utilized for securing the secure cryptographic handshake.
Theurer does not disclose:
Receive… structure;
Transmit… options;
Wherein the secure messaging… spawned payment message.
Pi Farias teaches:
receive, at a data receiver module, a payment data message (118) including at least a payment data cryptogram (120) (payment cryptogram response input, see [0753]) representing a payment token data structure;
transmit, through the application programming interface of the third party remote database (122), a redemption data message (124) including a redemption data cryptogram (payment cryptogram, see [0760]) indicating the selection of the one or more alternative payment options;
wherein the secure messaging with the application programming interface of the third party remote database (122) further includes using the secure cryptographic handshake for reserving in the one or more data records a quantity of payment tokens (quantity key tokens, see [0414]) corresponding to the full payment for a duration of time; wherein the secure cryptographic handshake includes a confirmation of the reserving in the one or more data records the quantity of payment tokens (quantity key tokens, see [0414]) corresponding to the full payment (purchase amount, see [0414]) for the duration of time; wherein the redemption data message (124) includes the at least one cryptographic secret and a data field indicative of an amount of redemption (payment amount, see [0658]); wherein a backend computer server (directory server, see [0766]), upon receiving the redemption data message (124), processes the redemption data message (124) and releases a reservation (transaction authorized and/or update payment data, see [0766]) corresponding to the reserving in the one or more data records of the quantity of payment tokens corresponding to the full payment for the duration of time; wherein the redemption data message is generated for asynchronously processing (execute asynchronously, see [1594]) relative to processing of a corresponding spawned payment message, the redemption data message (124) being buffered with one or more other redemption data messages for batch processing; and wherein the redemption data message is transmitted over a separate, lower security communications channel (multiple communication channels, see [0849]) distinct from the secure channel for the corresponding spawned payment message.
Theurer discloses a memory, a screen, a human interface device, a third party remote database, validating a confirmed enrollment, controlling rendering of a graphical user interface, receiving an indication of partial or full payment, establishing a secure channel, and a cryptographic secret. Theurer does not disclose receiving a payment data message, transmitting a redemption cryptogram, and recording a quantity of tokens, but Pi Farias does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the third-party value added wallet features and interfaces of Theurer with the receiving a payment data message, transmitting a redemption cryptogram, and recording a quantity of tokens of Pi Farias because 1) a need exists for frictionless enrollment of a consumer’s payment accounts in a virtual wallet (see Theurer [0044]); and 2) a need exists for protecting against unauthorized access to credit card accounts (see Pi Farias [0010]). Receiving a payment data message, transmitting a redemption cryptogram, and recording a quantity of tokens can help protect against unauthorized access.
Claims 2, 12
Furthermore, Theurer discloses:
the application programming interface of the third party remote database (122) is configured to return one or more user interface style sheets (see figure 12) that control one or more visual configurations of the one or more interactive graphical user interface controls (106).
Claims 3, 13
Furthermore, Theurer discloses:
the secure cryptographic handshake utilizes cryptographic keys generated in a key generation ceremony (see [0300]).
Claims 4, 14
Furthermore, Pi Farias teaches:
A secure network channel controller is configured to establish different security levels (e.g. level 2, 3, 4, see [0427]).
Claim 10
Furthermore, Theurer discloses:
the point of sale computing device (102) is a portable handheld device (mobile device, see [0072]) running a first mobile application configured for interfacing with the application programming interface of the third party remote database (122) and a second mobile application configured for processing the payment data message (118), the first mobile application and the second mobile application virtually segregated (discrete, separate to one another, see [0313]) from one another.
Response to Arguments
112 arguments
Applicant argues that the claims expressly recite structural cooperation among the processor, the application programing interface, the trusted memory region, and the secure channel.
Examiner disagrees. The claim limitations recite “a processor configured to: receive… validate… control rendering… receive… transmit… options.” As explained under the 112f analysis under Claim Interpretation below, the claims limitations invoke 112f because they use a generic placeholder (i.e. “a processor”) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The definition below of “processor” shows that it may be software (i.e. not inherently hardware). Applicant may remove the 112f analysis by explicitly reciting structure to perform the claimed limitations.
101 arguments
Examiner has withdrawn the 101 rejection in light of the arguments.
103 arguments
Please see the revised rejection above. Please note the “wherein” clauses in the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Note that claims 5-9 have a 112b rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached form PTO-892).
Singh et al. (US 2023/0410080) discloses a system and method for securing information in a network.
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
processor “(2) (software) A computer program that includes the compiling, assembling, translating, and related functions for a specific programming language, for example, Cobol processor, Fortran processor.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
112f analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a processor configured to: receive… validate… control… receive… transmit… options” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “a processor configured to: receive… validate… control… receive… transmit… options” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “a processor” coupled with functional language “configured to: receive… validate… control… receive… transmit… options” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The remaining limitations listed above have a similar analysis.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-10 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.
Prosecution Insights