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 . See MPEP 2152.01
Acknowledgement
The Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 6, 9, 16 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15 and 17-19 are original.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections
In regards to claims 6 and 16, wherein the amended claim language recites, “generating,…, a cryptogram wherein the cryptogram is generated based on the time stamp”, the specification recites, “[0060] Dynamic magstripe data (DMSD) and EMV data may be generated simultaneously by the e-wallet application. DMSD, which in turn comprises a cryptogram calculated based on a time stamp, is provided in the 1-D barcode, whereas both DMSD and EMV data are provided in the 2-D barcode.” This seems to be sufficient support for this limitation in the amended language.
Thus the 35 U.S.C. 112a rejections of 6-7 and 16-17 are withdrawn.
However, the amendment of claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112a below for lack of written description.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to 3 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, claims 3 and 13 are rejected over Gaddam et al (US 2016/0042263) in view of Scott (US 2017/0017958) as applied to claim 1, in further view of CN109426954A (hereinafter ‘954A)
Applicant’s argument with respect to the amendments of 6 and 7, 16 and 17 are persuasive. However, these claims are rejected over Gaddam in view of Scott as applied to claim 1 in further view of Wu et al (US 2016/0019533).
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites,
“wherein the time stamp comprises an unpredictable number generated for the transaction and used in generating a cryptogram.”
According to the specification, “[0060] Dynamic magstripe data (DMSD) and EMV data may be generated simultaneously by the e-wallet application. DMSD, which in turn comprises a cryptogram calculated based on a time stamp, is provided in the 1-D barcode, whereas both DMSD and EMV data are provided in the 2-D barcode”.
The steps and/or procedure taken to perform the function (i.e., algorithm by which the cryptogram is calculated or how the time stamp is used to generate or calculate the cryptogram ) is not described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01 I.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddam et al (US 2016/0042263) in view of Scott (US 2017/0017958).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Gaddam discloses a computer-implemented method, computing device at a user device [¶0005] comprising:
a main operating environment [¶0019], [¶0046] and
a protected operating environment [¶0019- a mobile device includes a secure element], the main operating environment comprising a processor [¶0005], [¶0022] and memories [¶0006], the method comprising:
executing, by the protected operating environment of the user device, a wallet application (Fig. 2)(Item# 102B-1)[¶0046];
authenticating, by the protected operating environment of the user device, a user of the user device [¶0052], [¶0057];
receiving, by the executing wallet application and from the user, transaction details of a transaction comprising at least a transaction amount (item# 220)[¶0060];
generating, by the processor in the main operating environment, a time stamp of when the transaction details are received; (102B-4)[¶0048]
based on the authenticating of the user and the selection of the payment card, generating, by the executing wallet application, an optical code comprising the transaction amount and the time stamp;[¶0048]
displaying, by the executing wallet application at the user device, the optical code on the display;[¶0002-QR codes may be displayed on user’s phone],[¶0005],[¶0018],[¶0033],[¶0041],[¶0060]
receiving, by the processor in the main operating environment, a transaction delivery notification from a service provider computer; [¶0091-step 10- the wallet server computer 104 sends a transaction completion message to the mobile wallet application 102B-2 ]and
displaying, by the processor in the main operating environment, the notification on the display.[¶0091- notification message is sent on the mobile device]
Gaddam fails to disclose, receiving, by the executing wallet application and from the user, a selection of a payment card for the transaction. This is disclosed by Scott. (see Fig. 14E)(item# 1407)(item# 1486)(item# 1477)[¶0189-¶0190]].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill to have modified Gaddam to provide a payment card selection feature as enunciated in Scott. The motivation would be to provide the user of Gaddam’s invention added convenience and the ability to choose within the wallet application a preferred payment instrument/method for a particular transaction and/or spending category.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Gaddam discloses wherein the optical code is at least one of a 1-D barcode and a 2-D barcode. [¶0002],[¶0018],[¶0020]
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Gaddam discloses wherein displaying, by the executing wallet application at the user device, the optical code on the display comprises simultaneously displaying, by the executing wallet application at the user device, a 1-D barcode and a 2-D barcode on the display. (see Figs. 6A and 6B [¶0062])
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Gaddam discloses wherein the 2-D barcode is an EMV Quick Response Code. (item# 308- scannable image)[¶0061-¶0062]
Regarding claims 8 and 18. The method of claim 1, wherein the protected operating environment is at least one of a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM), Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC), a Secure Element, or a Trusted Execution Environment.[¶0042]
Regarding claim 10, Gaddam discloses authenticating the user of the user device comprises authenticating the user of the user device using a method selected from a group comprising: a personal identification number (PIN), a password, and a biometric authentication mechanism.[¶0057-biometric sample such as a voice sample, iris sample or fingerprint can be used to provide authentication.]
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddam in view of Scott as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of ‘954A.
Gaddam in view of Scott fails to describe, but ‘954A describes wherein displaying, by the executing wallet application at the user device, the optical code on the display comprises simultaneously displaying, by the executing wallet application at the user device, a 1-D barcode and a 2-D barcode on the display.
[see ‘ 954A Fig. 4D (item# 410 & 412), 4F and 5E) (see also detailed description of the invention, particularly describing Figs. 4A-4H, “Then, as shown in Figure 4C…mobile application then generates and show QR code on display screen 410 and bar code 412…At least one of QR code 410 and/or bar code can be with it is read by the equipment of businessman.”
See also description of Figures 5A-5G, particularly fig. 5E, mobile application shows that Payment Card indicates 506, and generates and show QR code 516 on the display screen with bar code 518. At least one of QR code 516 and/or bar code 518 can be read by the equipment of businessmen”]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have integrated the bar code with the QR code as described in ‘954A into Gaddam in view of Scott. Gaddam particularly provides the QR code as a means of creating a secure scannable image [see Gaddam, ¶0005-¶0007] and would have considered using conventional, alternative scannable images have the ability to be scanned [¶0020-¶0021, ¶0074] that can be also displayed in a secure manner. Moreover, providing both QR code and bar code simultaneously on the same display would provide added convenience to the user to be able to choose which code was more convenient to use. Thus, such a modification, that being the ability to display two conventional codes (i.e., QR code and bar code) on a mobile/user device, would be within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by ‘954A.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddam in view of Scott as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US 2016/0019533).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Gaddam in view of Scottbut Wu discloses wherein generating, by the executing wallet application, the optical code comprising the transaction amount and the time stamp comprises: generating, by the executing wallet application and using the time stamp, a cryptogram and Europay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV) data; and generating, by the wallet application, a 1-D barcode using the cryptogram and the transaction amount and a 2-D barcode using the cryptogram, the EMV data, and the transaction amount.[¶0059]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have employed a cryptogram, as enunciated by Wu into Gaddam in view of Scott. The reason would be to provide an added security feature (i.e., proof of transaction), as enunciated in Wu for EMV transactions (e.g., EMV protocol).[see ¶0036, ¶0059,¶0079]. Thus
Regarding claims 7 and 17, wherein displaying, by the executing wallet application at the user device, the optical code on the display comprises simultaneously displaying, by the executing wallet application at the user device, the 1-D barcode and the 2-D barcode on the display. [see reasoning presented for claims 3 and 13]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights