DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 1/14/2025 is being examined under the pre-AIA first inventor to invent provisions.
The following is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits. Claims 2-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
This application is a CON of 18/312,438 05/04/2023, which is a CON of 17/408,167 08/20/2021 ABN which is a CON of 12/420,277 04/08/2009 PAT 11,120,449 which claims benefit of 61/043,326 04/08/2008 and claims benefit of 61/102,983 10/06/2008. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/12/2025; 5/12/2025; 5/12/2025; 5/12/2025; 5/12/2025; 8/5/2025; 12/15/2025; 3/19/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 2-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 2-11 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 12-21 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 2, (which is representative of independent claims 12) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 2 (which is representative of independent claims 12) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A computer-implemented method for automating a purchase transaction:
[B] receiving digital identification data from a portable electronic device at a reader device associated with a merchant,
[C] wherein the digital identification data uniquely associates the portable electronic device with a user;
responsive to receiving the digital identification data,
[D] initiating an authentication process performed by at least one of the reader devices and the portable electronic device, to determine whether the user is allowed to automate the purchase transaction via the portable electronic device;
responsive to initiating the authentication process,
[E] authenticating, via the reader device, the user by comparing the digital identification data to registered data for the user in a profile stored for the user to identify the portable electronic device and the user to the merchant, and confirming that the digital identification data matches the registered data; and
responsive to authenticating the user,
[F] receiving a profile sample stored on the portable electronic device to automatically perform at least one action toward the purchase transaction for the user,
[G] wherein the profile sample is a subset of the profile stored for the user on the portable electronic device and
[H] wherein the one action is at least one of initiating the purchase transaction and completing the purchase transaction.
Independent claim 2 (which is representative of independent claims 12) recites: authenticating the user ([D], [E]); and receiving the user profile stored in the portable device ([F]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: automating electronic order processing, using biometric identification.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 2 (which is representative of independent claims 12) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “a processor,” “a memory,” and “on a computing device” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein the digital identification data uniquely associates the portable electronic device with a user;”; “wherein the profile sample is a subset of the profile stored for the user on the portable electronic device”; “wherein the one action is at least one of initiating the purchase transaction and completing the purchase transaction.” as applied to the digital identification data, the profile sample, and initiating or completing the purchase transaction, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea automating electronic order processing, using biometric identification, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receiving digital authentication data ([B]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (automating electronic order processing, using biometric identification) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 2 (which is representative of independent claims 12) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 2 (which is representative of claims independent 12) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 2, 12 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 7, which is representative of dependent claims 17, recites:
automatically establishing a secure communication channel with the portable electronic device and requesting data from a stored profile of the user over the secure communication channel; and
wirelessly receiving the data from the stored profile of the user from the portable electronic device in an encrypted format over the secure communication channel.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (automating electronic order processing, using biometric identification) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (automating electronic order processing, using biometric identification).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 (which is representative of dependent claims 17) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 11, which is representative of dependent claims 21, recites:
providing a display of multiple payment types associated with the user including a credit card number, a debit card number, and a gift authorization number to the user; and
processing automatically a selection by the user of at least one of the credit card number, the debit card number, and the gift authorization number, to complete the purchase transaction by the user.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (automating electronic order processing, using biometric identification) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (automating electronic order processing, using biometric identification).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 (which is representative of dependent claims 21) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8-10, which are representative of dependent claims 13-16, 18-20, respectively, recite:
wherein the authentication process performed by the portable electronic device initiates the purchase transaction for quick completion of a low-cost purchase transaction under a predefined amount.
wherein the profile stored for the user includes one of: a user name, a user photograph, bank information, credit or debit card information, membership information, a first list of frequently visited merchants, a second list of favorite purchase transactions associated with each of the frequently visited merchants, one or more addresses for the user, a telephone number, and biometric data including, a digital or an analog representation of a fingerprint, a digital image of a retina or iris, a handwriting sample, a voice sample, and mathematically processed biometric profile information.
wherein a purchase transaction history for the user keeps track of a plurality of purchase transactions by the user associated with the merchant.
wherein data contained in the purchase transaction history is used to determine rewards for the user and wherein the rewards are processed upon fulfillment of the purchase transaction with the merchant.
wherein the profile sample is biometric data that is at least one of a portion of a full fingerprint image, data that describes an arc of one or more lines of a fingerprint and data representing color information of the fingerprint.
wherein the profile sample stored in the portable electronic device is a subset of a full PIN profile, including a PIN or a password associated with the user and
wherein an input by the user is compared with the subset of the full PIN profile at a point of the purchase transaction to authenticate the user.
wherein data registered for the user includes stored biometric data for the user.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the authentication process; the stored profile; the purchase transaction history; the purchase transaction data; the profile sample; the user input; the registered user data – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (automating electronic order processing, using biometric identification), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 3-6, 8-10 (which are representative of dependent claims 13-16, 18-20, respectively) are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elston et al (US 2002/0143655), in view of Siegel et al (US 2002/0091562).
Regarding Claims 2/12: Elston discloses: A computer-implemented method for automating a purchase transaction, comprising:
receiving digital identification data from a portable electronic device at a reader device associated with a merchant, wherein the digital identification data uniquely associates the portable electronic device with a user; {see at least fig3F, rc302-rc306, [0162]-[0164] customer identification information; [0140] connection is authenticated}
responsive to receiving the digital identification data, {Elston fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that step will be performed if the condition is fulfilled – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
initiating an authentication process performed by at least one of the reader device and the portable electronic device, to determine whether the user is allowed to automate the purchase transaction via the portable electronic device; {see at least fig3F, rc308-rc314, [0163] verification of authentication (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on user allowed to proceed if authenticated}
wherein the one action is at least one of initiating the purchase transaction and completing the purchase transaction. {see at least fig3F, rc316-rc322, [0164] order delivery (reads on completing the process)}
Elston does not disclose, however, Siegel discloses:
responsive to initiating the authentication process, {Siegel fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that step will be performed if the condition is fulfilled – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
authenticating, via the reader device, the user by comparing the digital identification data to registered data for the user in a profile stored for the user to identify the portable electronic device and the user to the merchant, and confirming that the digital identification data matches the registered data; and {see at least [0006]-[0007] customer identification information (reads on authenticating); fig1, rc20, [0024] portable device; fig4, [0035] customer profile, subordinate profile}
responsive to authenticating the user, {see at least [0164] transaction initiated after authentication}
receiving a profile sample stored on the portable electronic device to automatically perform at least one action toward the purchase transaction for the user, wherein the profile sample is a subset of the profile stored for the user on the portable electronic device and {see at least [0006]-[0007] customer identification information (reads on authenticating); fig1, rc20, [0024] portable device; fig4, [0035] customer profile, subordinate profile stored in electronic device}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Elston to include the elements of Siegel. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to perform the authentication. In the instant case, Elston evidently discloses initiating a user authentication process. Siegel is merely relied upon to illustrate the mechanics of the authentication in the same or similar context. Since both initiating a user authentication process, as well as mechanics of the authentication are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Elston, as well as Siegel would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Elston / Siegel.
Regarding Claims 3, 13: Elston, Siegel discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Elston further discloses:
wherein the authentication process performed by the portable electronic device initiates the purchase transaction for quick completion of a low-cost purchase transaction under a predefined amount. {see at least fig3F, rc316-rc324, [0164] transaction initiated after authentication. The claim element “for quick completion of a low-cost purchase transaction under a predefined amount” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
Regarding Claims 4, 14: Elston, Siegel discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Elston further discloses:
wherein the profile stored for the user includes one of: a user name, a user photograph, bank information, credit or debit card information, membership information, a first list of frequently visited merchants, a second list of favorite purchase transactions associated with each of the frequently visited merchants, one or more addresses for the user, a telephone number, and biometric data including, a digital or an analog representation of a fingerprint, a digital image of a retina or iris, a handwriting sample, a voice sample, and mathematically processed biometric profile information. {see at least [0235] customer records … customer name telephone number, address}
Regarding Claims 5, 15: Elston, Siegel discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Elston further discloses:
wherein a purchase transaction history for the user keeps track of a plurality of purchase transactions by the user associated with the merchant. {see at least [0235] retrieve customer’s transaction history}
Regarding Claims 6, 16: Elston, Siegel discloses the limitations of Claims 5, 15. Elston further discloses:
wherein data contained in the purchase transaction history is used to determine rewards for the user and wherein the rewards are processed upon fulfillment of the purchase transaction with the merchant. {see at least [0186] merchant can offer the list tow owner (based on BRI (MPEP 2111) reads on after completion of a transaction}
Regarding Claims 7, 17: Elston, Siegel discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Elston further discloses: further comprising:
responsive to detecting that the portable electronic device associated with the user is within a proximity zone of the reader device associated with the merchant, {see at least [0307] wireless device within the proximity of the base station}
automatically establishing a secure communication channel with the portable electronic device and requesting data from a stored profile of the user over the secure communication channel; and {see at least fig3F, rc300-rc320, [0163] initiate connection}
wirelessly receiving the data from the stored profile of the user from the portable electronic device in an encrypted format over the secure communication channel. {see at least fig3F, rc304, [0163] wireless device provides the information. The reference does not disclose the term “encrypted format”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.}
Regarding Claims 9, 19: Elston, Siegel discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Elston further discloses:
wherein the profile sample stored in the portable electronic device is a subset of a full PIN profile, including a PIN or a password associated with the user and {see at least [0195] PIN and signature; [0196] authentication of customer through mobile device; [0475] password or PIN}
wherein an input by the user is compared with the subset of the full PIN profile at a point of the purchase transaction to authenticate the user. {see at least [0195] PIN and signature; [0196] authentication of customer through mobile device; [0475] password or PIN}
Regarding Claims 11, 21: Elston, Siegel discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Elston further discloses: further comprising:
providing a display of multiple payment types associated with the user including a credit card number, a debit card number, and a gift authorization number to the user; and {see at least [0103] multiple payment types; [0238] payment types; [0454] payment types}
processing automatically a selection by the user of at least one of the credit card number, the debit card number, and the gift authorization number, to complete the purchase transaction by the user. {see at least [0238] credit card number, debit card number; [0292]. The reference does not disclose the term “automatically”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.}
Claims 8, 10, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elston et al (US 2002/0143655), in view of Siegel et al (US 2002/0091562), in further view of Denimarck et al (US 2003/0018522).
Regarding Claims 8, 18: Elston, Siegel discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 12. Elston, Siegel does not disclose, however, Denimarck discloses:
wherein the profile sample is biometric data that is at least one of a portion of a full fingerprint image, data that describes an arc of one or more lines of a fingerprint and data representing color information of the fingerprint. {see at least fig5, rc58, [0076] customer profile; stored fingerprint. The reference does not disclose the term “portion of a full … image”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Elston, Siegel to include the elements of Denimarck. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to make the authentication more secure. In the instant case, Elston, Siegel evidently discloses authenticating a user. Denimarck is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of biometric data, like fingerprints in the same or similar context. Since both authenticating a user, as well as biometric data, like fingerprints are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Elston, Siegel, as well as Denimarck would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Elston, Siegel / Denimarck.
Regarding Claims 10, 20: Elston, Siegel discloses the limitations of Claims 9, 12. Elston, Siegel does not disclose, however, Denimarck discloses:
wherein data registered for the user includes stored biometric data for the user. {see at least fig5, rc58, [0076] customer profile; stored fingerprint (reads on biometric data)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Elston, Siegel to include the elements of Denimarck. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to make the authentication more secure. In the instant case, Elston, Siegel evidently discloses authenticating a user. Denimarck is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of biometric data in the same or similar context. Since both authenticating a user, as well as biometric data are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Elston, Siegel, as well as Denimarck would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Elston, Siegel / Denimarck.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20110145570 A1 Gressel; Carmi David et al. Certified Abstracted and Anonymous User Profiles For Restricted Network Site Access and Statistical Social Surveys An arrangement, system, and methods for creating and distributing authenticated personal information for users of network services and participants in social surveys, and in chat rooms and other forums. A trusted organization verifies that personal information presented by a user is correct, and authenticates the information in an encapsulated form as "certified profiles" within a smart card or other secure portable hardware device issued to the user Certified profiles are authenticated by digital signatures of the trusted organization and the profile users. Personal information in certified profiles can be in raw and/or in statistically-processed and abstracted form, and can be tailored by the user for specific needs to include whatever personal information is required, and to exclude all other personal information. By the use of unique aliases, it is possible for users to anonymously access restricted network sites and participate in surveys, while still satisfying recipients that supplied personal information is accurate, and for surveys that the user has not responded to the same survey more than once. Users enroll for certified profiles via trusted enrollment vendors who market the service to the public and also make hardware and software available to users for managing, maintaining, and distributing the certified profiles.
US 20030200152 A1 Divekar, Sandeep M. Wireless shopping system and method System and method that enables a user to shop for one or more items by comparing the items with similar items using a portable wireless communication device.
US 20060287763 A1 Ochi; Daisuke et al. Power transmitting device, power receiving device, authentication/billing proxy device, electrical charging system, power transmitting method, power receiving method and electrical charging method To realize charging while in non-contact processing operation for the purpose other than charging. An approach of a portable electronic device 2 with a rapid bulk electricity storing module 20, which is a chargeable power source, is detected at the side of a power transmitting device 1, and power transmission for charging the rapid bulk electricity storing module 20 is executed in response to the detection of the approach. A power source can be charged in operation for non-contact authentication which is executed when a device approaches an authentication device.
US 20080154727 A1 Carlson; Mark COUPON OFFERS FROM MULTIPLE ENTITIES Offers from multiple entities provide an incentive for consumers to behave in a manner that is beneficial to the offer provider. Each offer is associated with rules that establish conditions that must be met for the offer to be valid. For example, a rule may be established to promote the use a specific form of payment, such as a particular credit card. Thus, the offer would only be valid if the consumer paid for the merchandise using the particular credit card. A merchant may generate its own offers or receive offers from a variety of sources (e.g., a payment processing organization, an issuer, or other external sources).
US 20020138445 A1 Laage, Dominic P. et al. Payment instrument authorization technique A method is provided for protecting a payment instrument in non-face-to-face transactions. The payment instrument is issued by an issuing entity and associated with an authorized instrument holder. The authorized instrument holder is subject to authentication by a trusted third party with whom the payment instrument holder has previously registered. The method includes: the authorized instrument holder communicating with the issuing entity to block, on a default basis, authorization of the payment instrument for non-face-to-face transactions unless authorized to unblock the payment instrument by the trusted third party; prior to a non-face-to-face transaction, the authorized instrument holder communicating with the trusted third party to subject him or herself to authentication and to request that the payment instrument be unblocked; and the trusted third party authenticating the authorized instrument holder, and if the authentication result is positive, communicating with the issuing entity to request unblocking of the payment instrument.
US 20090125401 A1 Beenau; Blayn W. et al. BIOMETRIC AUTHORIZATION OF AN RF TRANSACTION A method and system for biometric authorization to facilitate a radio frequency transaction is disclosed. In an exemplary embodiment, a system and method is provided for using biometric sample and biometric sample data to authorize completion of an RF transaction. Authorization of biometric sample data may authorize increasing a preloaded value, or using an additional value to supplement the preloaded value, in order to facilitate completion of an RF transaction.
US 20010034659 A1 Kobayashi, Hironori Simplified method and system for e-commerce operable in on-line and off -line modes A simplified method and system for e-commerce, which is operable in both on-line and off-line modes and in a manner which provides easy interface between entities providing products/services to the consuming public. A user tool is enabled to read identification indicia appearing on or in proximity to products or services and transmitting such information either wirelessly, or otherwise, to a central facility which carries out all of the necessary Internet searching to find information about the products/services. A consumer does not require to operate a PC or to have any knowledge concerning how to use, as by browsing or surfing the Internet, in order to procure information about products/services offered on the Internet.
US 20080114694 A1 Hamdane; Noureddine et al. Method and system for making transactions through electronic portable devices which can be connected to a communication network, and associated portable electronic device A method and system for making transactions with at least one merchant site trough an electronic portable device which can be connected to a communication network, comprising a connection of an electronic device to an intermediary site through the communication network. The said intermediary site being connectable to at least one merchant site, and a transmission to the said electronic portable device of information coming from at least one merchant site in a format which is adapted to the resources of the said electronic portable device.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights