DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 07/08/2026.
Claims 1-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are amended.
Claim 20 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues “”The claimed collector-mode architecture provides a technical solution to that problem. The disclosure explains that a merchant secure token transaction unit may permanently operate in collector mode and may be able to receive offline tokens but cannot send offline tokens as needed or arbitrarily, and may only redeem offline tokens at its own bank account (para. [0013]). The disclosure further explains that deactivated spendability can cause a token transaction from hardware to hardware to be forbidden while a token transaction from hardware to an online wallet is allowed (para. [0021]).” Examiner disagrees
Applicant argues for the disclosure providing the a technical solution to a technical problem, but the limitations do not reflect the argued points, the claim recites receiving an offline token to then storing it. The technical solution is not recited in the claims, as what is recited is storing an offline and a description of deactivation scenarios. From Applicant’s arguments, the storing of the offline tokens does not appear to be the technical solution for Applicant’s described technical problem, yet that is the positively recited function claimed. The rejection is maintained.
112
There is no written description support for any structure that performs the claimed functions. The rejection is maintained.
103
Maeng discloses the received at least one offline token is redeemable by the secure token transaction unit (STU) only to a predetermined online account, and/or the received at least one offline token is cryptographically marked or encrypted to enforce the restricted spendability ( ¶ 28, 50, 60-68; claim 4);
Claim Interpretation – According to the disclosure(¶ 19, 23), “Based on the deactivation of the spendability of the offline token, the offline token can only be redeemed or paid to an online account, e.g. bank account, of the user….The marking may include the labeling of the offline token with any deactivation information like “collected token” or “deactivated/restricted token”” Based on the disclosure “cryptographic” mark is identifying the offline token with any deactivation marking.
Maeng- In this way, the wallet management system may identify specific offline tokens that were stored at the lost mobile computing device. Accordingly, the wallet management system may reject the authentication of offline tokens that were stored at the lost mobile computing device, but may potentially authenticate proper offline tokens that were not stored at the lost mobile computing device (e.g., offline tokens stored on other mobile computing devices at the time that the lost mobile computing device was lost, offline tokens issued after the lost mobile computing device was lost, etc.). If one or more payment conditions are not met, the wallet management system may send a rejection message at action 616. ( ¶ 68)
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 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 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 functions of a “secure token transaction unit” as recited in claims 1-19. The “unit” is a nonce term.
According to the disclosure(¶ 57), “The secure token transaction unit STU comprises an offline token receiving unit 101 and an offline token storage unit 102. The offline token receiving unit 101 is configured for receiving at least one offline token of an electronic token transaction system TS from at least one other secure token transaction unit ASTU of the electronic token transaction system TS…. Optionally, the secure token transaction unit STU further comprises an online token receiving unit 105. The online token receiving unit 105 is configured for receiving at least one online token of an electronic token transaction system TS of at least one other secure token transaction unit ASTU of the electronic token transaction system TS. The secure token transaction unit STU further comprises an online token storage unit 106.” The disclosure does not appear to define what the “units” are structurally and what structure performs the claimed functions.
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 § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea 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 (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even 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) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to an article of manufacture, and claim 13 is directed to a method.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “receiving token… storing … token … and storing…token ….” The recited limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, specifically, fundamental economic principles, for example, placing limits on spending. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “receiving token… storing … token … and store… token….” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a fundamental economic practice as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9, 11, 12, 15-18 discuss functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Dependent claims 7, 8, 10, 14 and 19 process also geared toward the abstract idea of spending limits. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are also rejected.
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 1-19 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, 5, 7-11, 13, 15, 18 and 19 recite some combination of “a communication interface”, “one or more processors”, and “a secure memory”. The disclosure does not provide written description of any of these terms and further does not recite any device, computer, computing device or hardware that could perform the claimed functions. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are also rejected.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “cryptographically marked”. According to the disclosure(¶ 23, 37, 38, 47), “The marking may include the labeling of the offline token with any deactivation information like “collected token” or “deactivated/restricted token””. The disclosure provides for labeling the offline token. The disclosure does not provide written description for “cryptographically marked” offline tokens. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are also rejected.
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 1-19 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.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “cryptographically marked”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “cryptographically marked” in the claims is unclear and indefinite. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are also rejected.
Claim limitations with “unit” functions invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of a “secure token transaction unit” are recited in claims 1-19,. The “unit” is a nonce term.
According to the disclosure(¶ 57), “The secure token transaction unit STU comprises an offline token receiving unit 101 and an offline token storage unit 102. The offline token receiving unit 101 is configured for receiving at least one offline token of an electronic token transaction system TS from at least one other secure token transaction unit ASTU of the electronic token transaction system TS…. Optionally, the secure token transaction unit STU further comprises an online token receiving unit 105. The online token receiving unit 105 is configured for receiving at least one online token of an electronic token transaction system TS of at least one other secure token transaction unit ASTU of the electronic token transaction system TS. The secure token transaction unit STU further comprises an online token storage unit 106.” The disclosure does not appear to define what the “units” are structurally and what structure performs the claimed functions.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maeng (US 20240104550) (“Maeng”).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Maeng discloses receiving, via a communication interface of the secure token transaction unit, at least one offline token of an electronic token transaction system from at least one other secure token transaction unit of the electronic token transaction system (Abstract; ¶ 22, 41-43, 66-68, 73, 78, 81);
Claim Interpretation – According to the disclosure(¶ 11), “A collector STU may be a merchant STU or a IoT device wallet or a service provider wallet”
Maeng- the wallet management system 131 may produce and send an offline token, such as the offline token 160 shown in FIG. 1 , to the mobile wallet 110. In other examples, the financial institution 140 a produces the offline token and sends it to the wallet management system 141 that, in turn, sends the offline token to the mobile wallet 110. The offline token may be sent, for example, via the network 120. ( ¶ 43);
storing the received at least one offline token of the electronic token transaction system in a secure memory of the secure token transaction unit; and (Abstract; ¶ 43-45, 60-63);
Maeng- The mobile wallet 110 may store the offline token at action 406… The computing system may determine that the mobile wallet application is not online and determine that the first offline toke comprises first offline token data that matches the first offline token reference data. (Abstract; ¶ 43);
in a collector mode of the secure token transaction unit, one or more processors of the
secure token transaction unit storing, in the secure memory, the received at least one offline token such that a spendability of the received at least one offline token in further offline token transactions is deactivated( ¶ 28, 50, 60-63, 68; claim 4);
Maeng- If the received offline token does not match the next expected sequence number, it may indicate that the mobile wallet has malfunctioned and/or that an offline token has been stolen. Accordingly, the wallet management system may proceed to send a rejection message at action 616… Also optionally, at action 610, the wallet management system may determine if one or more payment conditions for the offline token are met…. An example payment condition is a threshold number of payments for which the offline token can be used. Another example payment condition is a geographic area in which the offline token may be used. Another example payment condition is a payment amount limitation. Another example payment condition is an expiration date for the offline token. ( ¶ 61, 62)
the received at least one offline token is redeemable by the secure token transaction unit (STU) only to a predetermined online account, and/or the received at least one offline token is cryptographically marked or encrypted to enforce the restricted spendability ( ¶ 28, 50, 60-68; claim 4);
Claim Interpretation – According to the disclosure(¶ 19, 23), “Based on the deactivation of the spendability of the offline token, the offline token can only be redeemed or paid to an online account, e.g. bank account, of the user….The marking may include the labeling of the offline token with any deactivation information like “collected token” or “deactivated/restricted token”” Based on the disclosure “cryptographic” mark is identifying the offline token with any deactivation marking.
Maeng- In this way, the wallet management system may identify specific offline tokens that were stored at the lost mobile computing device. Accordingly, the wallet management system may reject the authentication of offline tokens that were stored at the lost mobile computing device, but may potentially authenticate proper offline tokens that were not stored at the lost mobile computing device (e.g., offline tokens stored on other mobile computing devices at the time that the lost mobile computing device was lost, offline tokens issued after the lost mobile computing device was lost, etc.). If one or more payment conditions are not met, the wallet management system may send a rejection message at action 616. ( ¶ 68)
Regarding claim 2, Maeng discloses Maeng discloses wherein the electronic token transaction system is an offline token transaction system of an electronic token transaction system comprising an online digital currency system and the offline token transaction system ( ¶ 43-44).
Regarding claim 3, Maeng discloses Maeng discloses wherein the secure token transaction unit is a merchant secure token transaction unit, the merchant secure token transaction unit permanently operating in the collector mode ( ¶ 16-18, 25, 38, 44-47).
Regarding claim 4, Maeng discloses wherein the secure token transaction unit is a user secure token transaction unit, the user secure token transaction unit being operable in the collector mode and in a normal mode (Abstract; ¶ 35, 48, 54-68).
Regarding claim 5, Maeng discloses wherein the secure memory stores an offline token limit, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to maintain an offline token counter, for identifying if the at least one offline token, is above, below or equals the offline token limit, the offline token limit being a normal mode offline token limit or a collector mode offline token limit ( ¶ 28, 62).
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 17, Maeng discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to mark the received at least one offline token as to have the restricted spendability and/or to encrypt the received at least one offline token as to have the restricted spendability (¶ 28, 29, 55, 62-69).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6, 8-12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng (US 20240104550) (“Maeng”), and further in view of Zamani et al. (US 20250190984) (“Zamani”).
Regarding claim 6, Maeng does not disclose wherein the collector mode offline token limit is at least 150% of the normal mode offline token limit. Zamani teaches wherein the collector mode offline token limit is at least 150% of the normal mode offline token limit ( ¶ 139-143, 184-187, 192). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Maeng and Zamani in order to provide spending access to funds that were received in an offline transaction (Zamani; ¶ 2-4, 49).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Zamani teaches wherein the communication interface is further configured to receive at least one online token of an electronic token transaction system of at least one other secure token transaction unit of the electronic token transaction system; wherein the secure memory is further configured to store the received at least one online token of the electronic token transaction system, wherein in a normal mode of the secure token transaction unit, the received at least one online token is spendable in at least one further token transaction (Abstract; ¶ 135, 140-143; claim 2).
Regarding claim 9, Zamani teaches wherein the secure memory stores an online limit, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to maintain an online token counter, for identifying if the at least one online token, is above, below or equals the online token limit ( ¶ 32, 140-143).
Regarding claim 10, Maeng discloses wherein the communication interface is further configured to receive at least one online token of an electronic token transaction system of at least one other secure token transaction unit of the electronic token transaction system; wherein the secure memory is further configured to store the received at least one online token of the electronic token transaction system(Abstract; ¶ 22, 41-43, 66-68, 73, 78, 81). Zamani teaches wherein in a normal mode of the secure token transaction unit. the received at least one online token is spendable in at least one further token transaction, wherein the secure memory stores an online limit, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to maintain an online token counter for identifying if the at least one online token is above, below or equals the online token limit, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to set and/or update the online token limit and/or the offline token limit (Abstract; ¶ 139-143, 184-187, 192).
Regarding claim 11, Zamani teaches wherein the offline token limit and the online token limit, are included in a shared token limit stored in the secure memory (Abstract; ¶ 139-143, 184-187, 192).
Regarding claim 12, Zamani teaches wherein the offline token limit, and the online token limit, are identical or are different to each other (¶ 139-142, 180-182).
Regarding claim 14, Zamani teaches redeeming the at least one offline token only to a bank account or online account of the user or transferring the at least one offline token in an online transaction to another secure token transaction unit (¶ 50-56, 84, 87, 110, 177, 178).
Regarding claim 15, Zamani teaches wherein the redeeming, of the at least one offline token to the bank account or online account of the user is only executed when the at least one offline token, exceeds an offline token limit stored in the secure memory, or wherein the redeeming of the at least one offline token to a bank account or online account of the user is only executed when the at least one offline token exceeds the offline token limit and is only executed on a part of the at least one offline token exceeding the offline token limit (¶ 50-56, 110, 145-146).
Regarding claim 19, Zamani teaches setting and/or updating, by the one or more processors the offline token limit (¶ 50-56, 109, 113).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inabe et al., (US 20190068588) teaches offline token.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights