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 1-20, has been reviewed and are addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4-20-26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
With respect to applicant’s amendments filed on 3-30-26 it is entered and are addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101, applicant argues that the subject matter does not fall under the abstract idea categories. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations can be interpreted as falling under mental process since receiving data, authenticating (analyzing) and displaying data can be interpreted as mental process. The additional elements in the claims are used to execute the abstract idea. Applicant argues that the embedded display powered by energy, is used in a generic manner of displaying data.
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole integrate any judicial exception into a practical application and relies on Ancora Tech. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ancora Tech recites a specific technological improvement by assigning a unique license key to a specific component of the computer, where it solved a security problem. The instant claim is performing an authentication in practice used in the cited art.
Applicant argues that the prior art dose not teach the amended claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s payment card which “lacks energy storage capacity” which is described in paragraph 20 as “a contactless card can include a body, an antenna embedded in the body, and a display screen embedded in the body, viewable via a cutout in the body, and in communication with the antenna. When the antenna is within a short-range communication range of a device, the antenna can receive a first signal from the device, and the first signal can include energy. Responsive to receiving the first signal, the antenna can transmit the energy to the display screen, and the display screen can be powered by the energy to display personal account information associated with the contactless card or a user of the contactless card”. The prior art (Mackin) paragraph 4 teaches “a contactless card can receive power from, and communicate with, a terminal without direct physical contact between the terminal and the card. Typically, a contactless card communicates with a terminal via radio waves. The contactless card may include an antenna to receive an electromagnetic signal, such as a radio frequency (RF) signal, emitted from a terminal. Likewise, data from the card can be communicated back to the terminal by means of the card's antenna” which reads on the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 9 and 17 were amended to include that “contactless card that lacks energy storage capacity” and “wherein the energy is non-cumulative”. However there is no support for the amendments, the specification recite in paragraph 61 that “the contactless card can receive the power from another device with which the contactless card is communicating to make a purchase and/or authenticate the contactless card” and in paragraph 69 that “electrical, magnetic, or optical signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated” which means it can accumulate power.
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 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20, are drawn to a method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1, 9, 17 recite “receiving encrypted data”, “successfully decrypting the encrypted data to authenticate the contactless card”, “responsive to authenticating the contactless card, transmitting a first signal for displaying personal account information associated with the contactless card or an owner of the contactless card”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers formula, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. It also falls under mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “mobile device”, “body”, “short range antenna”, “display screen”, “contactless card that lacks energy storage capacity”, “transmitting, via the short-range communication antenna of the mobile device, a first signal to a short-range communication antenna of the contactless card, wherein the first signal includes energy to power a display screen embedded in the contactless card while the contactless card is receiving the first signal for displaying on the display screen embedded in the contactless card” are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims recite the additional element of “transmitting, via the short-range communication antenna of the mobile device, a first signal to the contactless card, wherein the first signal includes energy to power a display screen embedded in the contactless card for displaying personal account information associated with the contactless card or an owner of the contactless card”, “wherein the energy is non-cumulative” which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion
- paragraph 154 that “The system 600 can include a validation node 608, which can be a network-enabled computer as described herein. In some examples, the validation node 608 can be a server, which can be a dedicated server computer or a bladed server, or can be a personal computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a palm top computer, a network computer, a mobile device, a wearable device, or any processor-controlled device capable of supporting the system 600”.
-paragraph 195 recites “As explained above, the contactless card 802 may be built on a software platform operable on smart cards or other devices having limited memory, such as JavaCard, and one or more or more applications or applets may be securely executed. The applet(s) 1008 may be added to the contactless card 802 to provide a one-time password (OTP) for multifactor authentication (MFA) in various mobile application-based use cases. The applet(s) 1008 may be configured to respond to one or more requests, such as near field data exchange requests, from a reader, such as a mobile NFC reader (e.g., of a mobile device or a point-of-sale terminal) and produce an NDEF message that comprises a cryptographically secure OTP encoded as an NDEF text tag.”.
The claims recite the additional element “transmitting, via the short-range communication antenna of the mobile device, a first signal to the contactless card, wherein the first signal includes energy to power a display screen embedded in the contactless card for displaying personal account information associated with the contactless card or an owner of the contactless card”, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pathrabe (2021/0406869) in view Gupta (20220019997).
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being Anticipated by Pathrabe (2021/0406869).
With respect to claim 1 Pathrabe teaches a method comprising:
receiving, via a short-range communication antenna of a mobile device, encrypted data from a contactless card that lacks eregy storage capacity (Pathrabe paragraph 6);
successfully decrypting the encrypted data to authenticate the contactless card (Pathrabe paragraph 28); and
responsive to authenticating the contactless card, transmitting, via the short-range communication antenna of the mobile device, a first signal to the contactless card, (Pathrabe paragraph 73 “Mobile communication device 804 may have implemented therewithin, a mobile software application that enables communication between contactless payment card 802 and mobile communication device 804. The mobile software application is configured to receive software payment application information from contactless payment card 802 and to display this information to a user of the mobile communication device 804 through a mobile communication device display. The displayed information may include names and/or application identifiers identifying one or more software payment applications stored within a PPSE within contactless payment card 802, and/or priority information representing priority tag values assigned to each such software payment applications”).
Pathrabe does not explicitly teach wherein the first signal includes energy to power a display screen embedded in the contactless card for displaying on the display screen embedded in the contactless card personal account information associated with the contactless card or an owner of the contactless card.
Gupta teaches the method may also include displaying payment information on a display screen embedded in the smart card (Gupta paragraph 30) and the power source may be rechargeable. The power source may recharge via solar energy. The power source may recharge via inductive charging, e.g., with a wireless recharging mechanism. The power source may recharge via a charging port. A charging port may include mini or micro Universal Serial Bus (USB) connectors, or any other suitable connector. The power source may recharge via any other suitable charging mechanism (Gupta paragraph 31).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Pathrabe with Gupta with the motivation of bill payments are thus improved. Security may be increased by providing a platform with dedicated transactional hardware, software, and/or communication channels. Such a platform may be associated with a decreased risk of infection with malware, spyware, or other security risk factors (Gupta paragraph 31).
Claim 9 is rejected as above.
Claim 17 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 2 Pathrabe teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the display screen includes electronic paper, and wherein the personal account information is displayed in electronic ink on the electronic paper (Pathrabe paragraph 131).
Claim 10 is rejected as above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 3-8, 11-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pathrabe (2021/0406869) in view Gupta (20220019997) and Sancak (20170178141) .
With respect to claim 3 Pathrabe teaches the method of claim 1.
Pathrabe does not teach wherein the personal account information includes an image of the owner, an account number for the contactless card, or a one-time pin code.
Sancak teaches the user needs to enter a passcode/pin number in order to provide communication between the cash till POS device and the bank. In order to provide security, payment information may be sent to the mobile phone of the user. Moreover some smart contactless cards are used nowadays. These cards enable easier usage without entering a passcode. In these points where feasibility is tried to be provided various security flaws may occur. In the case that the card is stolen by a third party/person and/or if the pass code is known by a third person, unfortunately payment may be made against the will of the owner of the card (Sancak paragraph 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Pathrabe with Sancak with the motivation of providing security, payment information may be sent to the mobile phone of the user (Sancak paragraph 4).
Claim 11 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 4 Pathrabe in view of Gupta and Sancak teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the first signal includes at least some of the personal account information (Pathrabe paragraph 73).
Claim 12 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 5 Pathrabe teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the first signal includes instructions for the display screen to display the personal account information (Pathrabe paragraph 73).
Claim 13 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 6 Pathrabe teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: transmitting the first signal for a predetermined period of time (Pathrabe paragraph 58).
Claim 14 is rejected as above
With respect to claim 7 Pathrabe teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving, via the short-range communication antenna of the mobile device, the encrypted data from the contactless card a second time; successfully decrypting the encrypted data to authenticate the contactless card a second time; and responsive to authenticating the contactless card a second time, ceasing transmission of the first signal (Pathrabe paragraph 80).
Claim 15 is rejected as above.
Claim 18 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 8 Pathrabe teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving, via the short-range communication antenna of the mobile device, the encrypted data from the contactless card a second time; successfully decrypting the encrypted data to authenticate the contactless card a second time; and responsive to authenticating the contactless card a second time, transmitting, via the short-range communication antenna of the mobile device, a second signal to the contactless card, wherein the second signal includes instructions for the display screen to cease displaying any information (Pathrabe paragraph 77).
Claim 16 is rejected as above.
Claim 20 is rejected as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights