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 .
This communication is a First Action on the Merits/ Non-Final Office Action. This communication is further in response to telephonic communications held with Applicant’s representative. See attached interview summary.
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on May 29, 2025 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-20 are objected for various issues. For instance, the independent claims are broad, failing to capture which entity’s display the QR-code, i.e. from where does the client device capture the QR-code. Likewise, the claims fail to disclose which entity the client device sends the request for transaction account data to / received from, and which entity the client device sends the transaction account data to. Applicant need not disclose the entities involved in the claim limitations, however, reciting said entities would align with the Specification and clarify the scope of the claims.
Furthermore, and regarding at least the independent claims, the claims fail to utilize the decoded secure provisioning token (SPT). Once said secure provisioning token is decoded, the claims never utilize the SPT, causing the claims to be broad and lack technical aspects of how the SPT is relevant or related to the rest of the claimed limitations.
Finally, the dependent claims with regard to each independent claim are not parallel to one another. The claims also utilize both commas between limitations and semicolons; see claims 1 and 8 for instance. Although this is not of concern, it is best practice to parallel the claims to expedite prosecution and further to avoid any potential of a restriction by original presentation.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Per claim 5, the claim recites “wherein the at least one application causes the first computing device to: receive a request to create the transaction account for the user from a second computing device; and approve the request from the second computing device to create the transaction account.” Emphasis added.
The claim is directed to what the first computing device does. The first computing device is outside the scope of claims 1 and 4, which claim 5 depends from. Claims 1 and 4 are directed to a system of a client device, which does not comprise the first computing device. As a result, claim 5 is indefinite because it shifts the scope of the Applicant’s claimed invention from a client device to a first computing device. Emphasis added.
Any teaching of an application associated with a client device as claimed in claims 1 and 4 will be determined to read on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of sending transaction account data as a result of manipulating data without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations. The relationship between the claimed entity and other entities that provide the information to the entity in order allow the entity to send the transaction account data highlight the abstract idea grouping and subgroupings identified. Furthermore, the claims are clearly directed to using transaction account data, which is evident of a sale activity rooted in commercial interactions.
Claim 8, in pertinent part, recites:
A method, comprising:
capturing… [data];
decoding, by the client device, the QR code to obtain a secure provisioning token;
sending… a request for transaction account data associated with a transaction account, wherein the request comprises a client-provided token that is based on the… [data] that is configured to be displayed to a user;
receiving… the transaction account data associated with the transaction account in response to the client-provided token being validated; and
sending… the transaction account data…
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: A client device, a quick response (QR) code in a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) session, a short-range wireless communication channel, the client device comprising a processor and a memory and at least one application stored in the memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions, and one or more processors. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as reading, capturing, or receiving data, decrypting or analyzing the data, manipulating data and outputting a result such as sending data. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. Furthermore, the abstract idea is determined to be generally linked to a particular technological environment, use of bar-codes, high level cryptography, and payment settlement.
The claims 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 elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0279469 to Mendes (Mendes).
Per claims 1, 8, and 15, Mendes teaches all of the claim limitations:
A system, comprising: a client device associated with a user, the client device comprising a processor and a memory; and at least one application stored in the memory that, when executed by the client device, causes the client device in a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) session, to [Abstract, Paragraphs 0013-0015, and 0051 and 0057]:
capture a quick response (QR) code [Abstract, Paragraphs 0055, and 0094]
decode the QR code to obtain a secure provisioning token (the token is decoded to determine information within the code including secure data and other related unique data that is interpreted as token data such as the hash key) [Paragraph 0094],
send a request for transaction account data associated with a transaction account, wherein the request comprises a client-provided token that is based on the QR code that is configured to be displayed to the user (the information obtain from the decoding of the code allows for the device to send a request for a funding account, the account information being later received by the device) [Paragraphs 0095-0096],
receive the transaction account data associated with the transaction account in response to the client-provided token being validated (account details are received by the device wherein said details are interpreted as the transaction account data received in response to the user providing secure information interpreted as the client provided token data such as a password, pin, etc.) [Paragraphs 0071, and 0098-0099], and
send the transaction account data via a short-range wireless communication channel (the communication capable of being carried out by the client device includes short-range communication such as near-field communication, Bluetooth®, and so on, which Mendes teaches as being utilized by the client device to communicate data and that such communication methods are settled in the art) [Paragraphs 0099-0102 and 0006, 0009, 0031, and 0052, and 0093].
Per claim 2, Mendes teaches wherein the transaction account data is sent to a first computing device [Paragraphs 0099-0102 and 0006, 0009, 0031, and 0052, and 0093].
Per claims 9, and 16, Mendes teaches encoding the transaction account data; and transmitting the transaction account data encoded to the client device [Paragraphs 0027 and 0099-0102].
Per claims 3, 13 and 19, Mendes teaches wherein the secure provisioning token comprises at least one of: a first identifier that identifies the at least one application for the transaction account, a second identifier that identifies an approval of the at least one application, or a third identifier that identifies the transaction account created as a result of the approval of the at least one application [Paragraphs 0035, 0090, and 0098-0099].
Per claims 4, 10, and 17, Mendes teaches wherein the request for the transaction account data associated with the transaction account is sent to a first computing device [Paragraphs 0099-0102 and 0006, 0009, 0031, and 0052, and 0093].
Per claim 5, Mendes teaches wherein the at least one application causes the first computing device to: receive a request to create the transaction account for the user from a second computing device; and approve the request from the second computing device to create the transaction account [Paragraphs 0035, and 0071].
Examiner notes that this claim is outside the scope of what is claimed; see claim 1 and 4; therefore, it has not patentable weight.
Per claims 6, 14, and 20 Mendes teaches wherein the client device sends a request for the transaction account data associated with the transaction account to a first computing device in the HTTP session, the request comprising the secure provisioning token that is based on the QR code that is to be displayed to the user [Paragraphs 0071, and 0098-0099].
Examiner notes that the limitation “QR code that is to be displayed to the user” is unclear because the QR was already displayed; see independent claims.
Per claims 7, 11, and 18, Mendes teaches wherein the transaction account data comprises at least one of: a transaction account identifier, an expiration date, or a user name [Paragraphs 0094-0098].
Per claim 12, Mendes teaches wherein the transaction account is received from a second computing device [Paragraphs 0071, and 0098-0099].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
For instance, see PGPUB 2014/0263618 to McCarthy et al. (McCarthy). McCarthy teaches all of the Applicant’s claimed scope. See Figures 4-5 and related text. It would have been obvious to communicate the account information received from the mobile device to the merchant. Such teachings are well settled in the art and as Mendes teaches, teach away from providing secure transaction capabilities because a fraudster would be able to intercept the data transfer from the user device to the merchant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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 W. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699