DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 26, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on March 21, 2024 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
The “special secure element” for temporary offline storing of history data related to tokens being transacted within offline token transactions, in claim 1.
The “secure element computing unit” configured for receiving at least one token from another secure element when performing an offline token transaction between the secure element and the other secure element, in claim 1.
The “special secure element computing unit” configured for directly or indirectly receiving history data, in claim 1.
The “secure transaction unit” configured such that the secure element performs a further offline transaction and, in parallel, the special secure element registers the token of the secure element, in claim 2.
The “secure token transaction unit” configured for providing a token transaction request to the other secure element, in claim 10.
The “secure element computing unit” configured for providing a token transaction request to the other secure element, in claim 10.
The “secure element computing unit” configured for receiving the history data from the other secure element, in claim 11.
The “secure element computing unit” configured for providing the history data to the special secure element, in claim 11.
The “secure element computing unit” configured for providing a registration request to the special secure element for providing the history data to the token register, in claim 11.
The “secure element computing unit” configured for receiving a registration response from the token register, in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 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.
The claim limitations identified in the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section, seen above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s).
With respect to the “special secure element”, applicant’s disclosure indicates “a special secure element, e.g. another smart card, computing unit and/or a secure storage unit” Specification [0016]. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited special secure element.
With respect to the “secure element computing unit”, applicant’s disclosure repeats the language recite on the claims. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited secure element computing unit.
With respect to the “special secure element computing unit”, applicant’s disclosure repeats the language recite on the claims. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited secure element computing unit.
With respect to the “secure transaction unit”, applicant’s disclosure indicates “For instance, the secure transaction unit may be a smart phone, a tablet computer, a computer, a server or a merchant terminal, in particular a point of sale, POS, system but is not limited thereto” Specification, [0016]. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what specific structure, is associated with the recited secure transaction unit.
With respect to the “secure token transaction unit”, applicant’s disclosure repeats the language recite on the claims. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited secure element computing unit.
The structure corresponding to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitations that are computer-implemented specialized functions must include a general purpose computer or computer component along with the algorithms that the computer uses to perform each claimed specialized function. It is further noted that the written description requirement under 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could devise an algorithm to perform the specialized programmed functions. In view of the details provided above, Examiner contends that applicant’s disclosure does not provide a disclosure of corresponding structure in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how the inventor intended to program the disclosed computer to perform all of the claimed functions. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly, claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitations identified in the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section, seen above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s).
With respect to the “special secure element”, applicant’s disclosure indicates “a special secure element, e.g. another smart card, computing unit and/or a secure storage unit” Specification [0016]. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited special secure element.
With respect to the “secure element computing unit”, applicant’s disclosure repeats the language recite on the claims. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited secure element computing unit.
With respect to the “special secure element computing unit”, applicant’s disclosure repeats the language recite on the claims. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited secure element computing unit.
With respect to the “secure transaction unit”, applicant’s disclosure indicates “For instance, the secure transaction unit may be a smart phone, a tablet computer, a computer, a server or a merchant terminal, in particular a point of sale, POS, system but is not limited thereto” Specification, [0016]. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what specific structure, is associated with the recited secure transaction unit.
With respect to the “secure token transaction unit”, applicant’s disclosure repeats the language recite on the claims. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited secure element computing unit.
Examiner notes that for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the corresponding structure includes both the computer and the algorithm that performs the recited functions. In this instance, and as explained above, the disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure (i.e. computer and algorithm), material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the various functions. Accordingly, claims 2-13 indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine (claims 1-13). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A secure transaction unit for use in an electronic token transaction system, the secure transaction unit comprising:
a secure element; and
a special secure element for temporary offline storing of history data related to tokens being transacted within offline token transactions;
wherein the secure element comprises:
a secure element computing unit configured for receiving at least one token from another secure element when performing an offline token transaction between the secure element and the other secure element;
wherein the special secure element comprises:
a special secure element computing unit configured for directly or indirectly receiving history data, the received history data being related to the at least one token received by the secure element from the other secure element, for temporary offline storing of the received history data, and for registration of the at least one received token in a token register, by providing the temporarily stored history data to the token register.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of receiving data of a transaction, register, store and providing this data. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., collecting and managing data).
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 1 recite the additional element of a secure transaction, a secure element, a transaction system, a secure element, a special secure element, a secure element computing unit and a special secure element computing unit. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of a secure transaction, a secure element, a transaction system, a secure element, a special secure element, a secure element computing unit and a special secure element computing unit in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, 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. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a secure transaction, a secure element, a transaction system, a secure element, a special secure element, a secure element computing unit and a special secure element computing unit) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 9 further refine the abstract idea by describing the secure transaction unit. This claim fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3-5 and 7 further refine the abstract idea by describing the received history data, the two or more token and the received token. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 8 further refine the abstract idea by describing the secure element. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10-13 further refine the abstract idea by describing the he secure token transaction unit or the secure element computing unit and special secure element. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-3 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govindarajan et al. (US 2019/0095907 A1) “Govindarajan” in view of Albert et al, (US 2024/0275599 A1) “Albert”.
Regarding claim 1: Govindarajan disclose A secure transaction unit for use in an electronic token transaction system, the secure transaction unit comprising:
a secure element; and (See at least Govindarajan, Abs.; [0021]; [0023] secure element subsystem)
a special secure element for temporary offline storing of history data related to tokens being transacted within offline token transactions; (See at least Govindarajan, Abs.; [0021]; [0045]; a secure ledger; store that signed offline transaction in respective payer and payee secure ledgers that are include in the secure element subsystems.)
wherein the secure element comprises:
receiving at least one token from another secure element when performing an offline token transaction between the secure element and the other secure element; (See at least Govindarajan, [0021]; [0031] The payer transaction device may then use a local, peer-to-peer wireless connection to share that signed offline transaction with the payee transaction device, and each of the payer transaction device and payee transaction device may store that signed offline transaction in respective payer and payee secure ledgers that are include in the secure element subsystems on the payer transaction device and payee transaction device; a secure digital token as part of the offline transaction with the payee transaction device.)
wherein the special secure element comprises:
directly or indirectly receiving history data, the received history data being related to the at least one token received by the secure element from the other secure element, for temporary offline storing of the received history data, and for registration of the at least one received token in a token register, by providing the temporarily stored history data to the token register. (See at least Govindarajan, [0021]; each of the payer transaction device and payee transaction device may store that signed offline transaction in respective payer and payee secure ledgers that are include in the secure element subsystems on the payer transaction device and payee transaction device. any device that receives the signed offline transaction may subsequently share it in the same manner in order to distribute the signed offline transaction. When a subsequent connection to the Internet becomes available to any device that has received the signed offline transaction, the digital token may then be synchronized with at least one ledger tracking system by, for example, broadcasting the signed offline transaction over the connection to the Internet to at least one ledger tracking system.)
Govindarajan does not explicitly disclose a separate a secure element computing unit comprising a special secure element computing unit that receives and stored the token data.
Albert, on the other hand teaches an electronic transaction system, which includes the secure element acting as a transaction unit and a token reference register. (See at least Albert, Abs.; [0012])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Govindrajan and include Albert’s teachings in order to enhance security and facilitate reliable token management within offline transactions.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the secure transaction unit is configured such that the secure element performs a further offline transaction and, in parallel, the special secure element registers the token of the secure element. (See at least Govindarajan, [0031]; The subsequent synchronization of that digital token by at least one device with at least one ledger tracking system when an Internet connection is subsequently available ( e.g., by the payer transaction device, by the payee transaction device, and/or by a local device) provides for the actual transfer of funds between the payer and the payee.)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the received history data comprises two or more token history entries. (See at least Govindarajan, [0031]; [0033] Referring now to FIGS. 2 and 3, embodiments of methods 200 and 300 for providing secure offline transactions are illustrated. Specifically, the method 200 describes the participation in secure offline transactions by a payee, while the method 300 describes the participation in secure offline transactions by a payer.
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the secure element comprises a data memory configured for storing the at least one received token. (See at least Govindarajan, [0023] devices discussed below. For example, the secure element subsystem 104 may be provided by tamper-resistant hardware included in the transaction device 100 that is configured to securely host application and securely store data, Abs In response, the wallet application creates a digital token that allocates the transaction amount from the payer account balance to the payee identifier, and records the digital token in a payer secure ledger in the secure ledger database, which reduces the available payer account balance by the transaction amount.)
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 6. The combination further disclose, wherein the at least one received token is modified by the secure element computing unit. (See at least Govindarajan, [0051] the payer
transaction device 504 writes a digital token to the ledger database 108 on its secure element subsystem 104.)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 7. The combination further disclose wherein the secure element comprises a data memory configured for storing the at least one received token. (See at least Govindarajan, [0023] devices discussed below. For example, the secure element subsystem 104 may be provided by tamper-resistant hardware included in the transaction device 100 that is configured to securely host application and securely store data, Abs In response, the wallet application creates a digital token that allocates the transaction amount from the payer account balance to the payee identifier, and records the digital token in a payer secure ledger in the secure ledger database, which reduces the available payer account balance by the transaction amount.)
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the secure transaction unit is a merchant terminal. (See at least Govindarajan, [0069] The payee device 704 may be maintained, for
example, by a conventional or on-line merchant, conventional or digital goods seller, individual seller, and/or application developer offering various products and/or services in exchange for payment to be received conventionally or over the network 712.)
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the secure token transaction unit or the secure element computing unit is further configured for providing a token transaction request to the other secure element. (See at least Govindarajan, Fig. 3; payer transaction device creates payment token and writes payment token to ledger database on secure transaction element.
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the secure element computing unit is further configured for:
receiving the history data from the other secure element; (See at least Govindarajan,
providing the history data to the special secure element, and/or providing a registration request to the special secure element for providing the history data to the token register. (see at least Govindarajan, fig. 2 payee transaction device writes invoice entry to ledger database on secure element.)
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 11. The combination further disclose wherein the special secure element computing unit is further configured for receiving the registration request from the secure transaction unit or the secure element computing unit. (See at least Albert, [0012] receiving, in a token reference register of the transaction system, a sequence of registration requests.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Govindrajan and include Albert’s teachings in order to enhance security and facilitate reliable token management within offline transactions.
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the secure element computing unit is further configured for receiving a registration response from the token register. (See at least Albert, [0035] In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises the further steps of generating, from the verification unit of the token reference register, a registration response, the registration response indicating a result of the verification step, and sending the registration response to a subscriber unit or registration request unit of the transaction system sending the registration request from the sequence f registration requests, preferably the subscriber unit having the token of the at least one token reference of the sequence of registration requests.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Govindrajan and include Albert’s teachings in order to enhance security and facilitate reliable token management within offline transactions.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govindarajan and Albert as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Whitham, (WO 2023/063987 A1).
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 3. The combination do not explicitly disclose, however Whitham teaches wherein, each of the two or more token history entries refers to an unregistered token of the offline token transaction of the secure element, of a previous transaction of the other secure element, or of a previous transaction of a further other secure element. (See at least Whitham, [00101] the smart contract data may include indications of the previous complex digital token values before the transfer and the current digital token values after the transfer.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Whitham teachings in order to improve traceability and validation of offline transactions.
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Govindarajan and Albert disclose the secure transaction unit according to claim 3. The combination do not explicitly disclose, however Whitham teaches wherein at least one first token history entry of the two or more token history entries allows the token register to register a previous token and thereafter a second token history entry of the two or more token history entries allows the token register to register the received token. (See at least Whitham, [0094]; [00101] In these implementations, the complex token system 100 may use an unspent transaction output (UTXO) model to aggregate the amount of unspent outputs at a user's address to determine the complex digital token value at the user's address (e.g., 8 + 5i).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Whitham teachings in order to improve traceability and validation of offline transactions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khmelev (US 12380445 B1)Emergency fund allocation system can comprise any suitable machine learning models or algorithms for calculating an allocation amount based on a set of input parameters. In some cases, a linear model could be used in which each input is weighted and a sum of the weighted inputs provides the output allocation amount. In other cases, nonlinear models, including neural networks, could be used to predict appropriate allocation amounts based on input parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698