DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 19/034,888 filed 01/23/2025 is a Continuation of 17/672,230, filed 02/15/2022, now abandoned and which in turn is a Continuation of 16/511,954, now U.S. Patent 11,308,498, filed 07/15/2019.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 01/23/2025.
Claims 21-40 are pending, of which claims 21, 28, and 35 are independent.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2025 has been considered.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claim 21 is an apparatus claim, and independent claims 28 and 35 are method claims.
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 21 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
In regards to claim 21,
21. (New) A transit payment system, comprising:
a payment reader;
a memory; and
a processor that executes instructions stored by the memory to:
obtain information relating to a payment account of a user at an entry point of a transit system from the payment reader;
determine available funds associated with the payment account of the user based on the obtained information;
compare the available funds to a maximum fee, wherein the maximum fee is calculated based on a distance between the entry point and a farthest exit point of the transit system, and wherein sufficient funds to pay the maximum fee are required to access the transit system;
determine the available funds are sufficient to pay the maximum fee based on the comparison; and
grant access to the transit system to the user based on the determination that the available funds are sufficient to pay the maximum fee.
More specifically, claims 21-40 recite an abstract idea: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", specifically “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“compare the available funds to a maximum fee, wherein the maximum fee is calculated based on a distance between the entry point and a farthest exit point of the transit system, and wherein sufficient funds to pay the maximum fee are required to access the transit system”.
“determine the available funds are sufficient to pay the maximum fee based on the comparison”.
“grant access to the transit system to the user based on the determination that the available funds are sufficient to pay the maximum fee”.
Moreover, claims 21-40 recite “Mathematical Concepts", specifically “Mathematical Relationships”, “Mathematical Formulas or Equations”, and “Mathematical Calculations”, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) Part (IV), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The mathematic elements include:
“compare the available funds to a maximum fee, wherein the maximum fee is calculated based on a distance between the entry point and a farthest exit point of the transit system, and wherein sufficient funds to pay the maximum fee are required to access the transit system”.
“determine the available funds are sufficient to pay the maximum fee based on the comparison”.
“grant access to the transit system to the user based on the determination that the available funds are sufficient to pay the maximum fee”.
The “additional elements” include: “a payment reader”, “a memory”, and “a processor”.
Moreover, “additional extra-solution elements” include: “obtain information relating to a payment account of a user at an entry point of a transit system from the payment reader”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“a payment reader”, “a memory”, and “a processor”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“obtain information relating to a payment account of a user at an entry point of a transit system from the payment reader”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“a payment reader”, “a memory”, and “a processor”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“obtain information relating to a payment account of a user at an entry point of a transit system from the payment reader”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “receiving” step (“obtain information relating to a payment account of a user at an entry point of a transit system from the payment reader”), see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
Independent claims 28 and 35 are rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 21.
All dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-2018/0247465-A1 to Lopez Alaniz et al. (“Lopez Alaniz”. Filed on Feb. 28, 2017. Published on Aug. 30, 2018) in view of US-2013/0173357-A1 to Lishak et al. (“Lishak”. Eff. Filed on Dec. 29, 2010. Published on Jul. 4, 2013), and further in view of US 7,731,086 to Saunders et al. (“Saunders”. Eff. Filed on Jun. 10, 2005. Published on June 8, 2010).
In regards to claim 21, Lopez Alaniz teaches:
21. (New) A transit payment system, comprising:
a payment reader;
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0014]: “The system 100 includes a conventional payment card/device 102. Item 102 may be, for example, a magnetic stripe or IC (integrated circuit) payment card, or a payment-enabled mobile device that stores credentials for one or more payment accounts. The system 100 further includes a reader component 104 associated with a POS terminal 106. In some known manner (depending on the type of the payment device 102) the reader component 104 is capable of reading the payment account number and other information from the payment device 102.”)
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0015]: “The reader component 104 and the POS terminal 106 may be located at the premises of a retail store/merchant and operated by a sales associate of the merchant for the purpose of processing retail transactions.”)
a memory; and
a processor that executes instructions stored by the memory to:
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0016]: “A computer 108 operated by an acquirer (acquiring financial institution) is also shown as part of the system 100 in FIG. 1. The acquirer computer 108 may operate in a conventional manner to receive an authorization request for the transaction from the POS terminal 106. The acquirer computer 108 may route the authorization request via a payment network 110 to the server computer 112 operated by the issuer of a payment account that is associated with the payment card/device 102. As is also well known, the authorization response generated by the payment account issuer server computer 112 may be routed back to the POS terminal 106 via the payment network 110 and the acquirer computer 108.”)
obtain information relating to a payment account of a user at an entry point of a transit system from the payment reader;
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0011]: “In general, and for the purpose of introducing concepts of embodiments of the present disclosure, a payment-enabled mobile device may be used to enter a number of different transit systems which use incompatible, “closed-loop” payment systems. A central database stores downloadable digital material (hereinafter referred to as “protocols”) that may be used to control a short-range signaling (e.g., NFC—near field communication) capability of the mobile device so that it is able to engage in entry transactions with the transit entry terminals/payment systems of the various transit systems. (A protocol may include one or more scripts, processing routines, data, parameters, flags and/or other resources that may be necessary to allow an application program to control the NFC functionality of the mobile device to emulate the functionality of a dedicated contactless IC transit access card for a particular transit system.) A different protocol is downloaded to/stored in the mobile device for each of the closed-loop systems to be transacted with, and is invoked by the user when seeking entry into the corresponding transit system.”)
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0014]: “The system 100 includes a conventional payment card/device 102. Item 102 may be, for example, a magnetic stripe or IC (integrated circuit) payment card, or a payment-enabled mobile device that stores credentials for one or more payment accounts. The system 100 further includes a reader component 104 associated with a POS terminal 106. In some known manner (depending on the type of the payment device 102) the reader component 104 is capable of reading the payment account number and other information from the payment device 102.”)
determine available funds associated with the payment account of the user based on the obtained information;
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0001]: “In some cities, there are two or more public mass transit systems that do not share a common mode of payment. It is not uncommon in such cities for passengers/users to carry a number of different integrated circuit (IC) payment cards, with each of the user's cards dedicated for use in obtaining entry to a different one of the transit systems. In some systems, these cards are essentially stored value cards in which adequate funds must be currently available when the user seeks entry to the transit system. Aside from the inconvenience of carrying multiple cards, some users also face financial liquidity issues with respect to their transit access cards. That is, some users of transit systems have low incomes and find it difficult to maintain adequate balances on the cards to satisfy their daily needs for access to the transit systems for their daily commutes and other travel via mass transit. Because of personal budgetary constraints, some users need to engage in frequent top-up transactions for their transit access cards so that they do not have an excessive proportion of their available financial resources tied up on their transit cards.”)
However, under a conservative interpretation of Lopez Alaniz, it could be argued that Lopez Alaniz does not explicitly teach the features recited below, which are taught by Saunders (and the teachings of Saunders are summarized in Lishak):
compare the available funds to a maximum fee, wherein the maximum fee is calculated based on a distance between the entry point and a farthest exit point of the transit system, and wherein sufficient funds to pay the maximum fee are required to access the transit system;
determine the available funds are sufficient to pay the maximum fee based on the comparison; and
grant access to the transit system to the user based on the determination that the available funds are sufficient to pay the maximum fee.
(See Saunders, col. 20, line 66 to col. 21, line 10:” As the customer passes through the gate terminal, the system indicates there is sufficient fare on the customer's transaction instrument. In contrast to conventional transit fare cards, which are typically stored-value cards from which a fare is deducted, the transaction instrument in the present invention is always “full,” because the customer is billed as with any other retail credit card purchase, namely, at the close of a billing period. Consequently, the user receives the benefit of always being able to ride a mass transit system without ever needing to refill their payment device, provided of course that their MT number has not been listed as closed by the transaction instrument issuer.”)
(See Lishak, para. [0024]: “Some known solutions, such as that presented in U.S. Pat. No. 7,731,086, "System and method for mass transit merchant payment", by Peter D. Saunders et al, initially charge the maximum fare without connecting to the central host for retrieving the data necessary to calculate the exact fare. The applicable discounts are accounted a day or two later, in a back-office clearing and settlement process, by adjusting the charged amount. This creates inconvenience. The card is temporally overcharged and in some situations this may cause service to be declined due to insufficient funds, even when sufficient funds are available.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the methods and systems for offering universal access to mass transit systems using mobile devices, as taught by Lopez Alaniz above, with methods of offline fare collection for open-loop and hybrid card systems, as further taught by Saunders and Lishak (the cited section of Lishak being a discussion of Saunders), because all three references (Lopez Alaniz, Saunders, and Lishak,) are in the same art of using credit cards and/or mobile phones to pay fares of mass transit systems, and the teaching in Lishak/Saunders discloses a method that has the benefit that “the transaction instrument in the present invention is always ‘full’”.
In regards to claim 22,
22. (New) The transit payment system of Claim 21, wherein the maximum fee is related to at least one of a toll or a fare of the transit system.
(See Saunders, col. 20, line 66 to col. 21, line 10:” As the customer passes through the gate terminal, the system indicates there is sufficient fare on the customer's transaction instrument. In contrast to conventional transit fare cards, which are typically stored-value cards from which a fare is deducted, the transaction instrument in the present invention is always “full,” because the customer is billed as with any other retail credit card purchase, namely, at the close of a billing period. Consequently, the user receives the benefit of always being able to ride a mass transit system without ever needing to refill their payment device, provided of course that their MT number has not been listed as closed by the transaction instrument issuer.”)
(See Lishak, para. [0024]: “Some known solutions, such as that presented in U.S. Pat. No. 7,731,086, "System and method for mass transit merchant payment", by Peter D. Saunders et al, initially charge the maximum fare without connecting to the central host for retrieving the data necessary to calculate the exact fare. The applicable discounts are accounted a day or two later, in a back-office clearing and settlement process, by adjusting the charged amount. This creates inconvenience. The card is temporally overcharged and in some situations this may cause service to be declined due to insufficient funds, even when sufficient funds are available.”)
In regards to claim 23,
23. (New) The transit payment system of Claim 21, wherein obtaining information relating to the payment account of the user at the entry point of the transit system is based on at least one of the user tapping a payment device to the payment reader of the transit payment system or a wireless communication between a payment device of the user and the payment reader of the transit payment system.
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0022]: “Also shown in FIG. 2 is an individual user 204 who is carrying a payment-enabled mobile device 206. An exchange of short-range radio communications between the payment-enabled mobile device 206 and the transit system terminal 202 is schematically illustrated at 210.”)
In regards to claim 24,
24. (New) The transit payment system of Claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain information relating to the payment account of the user at an exit point of the transit system, wherein the exit point comprises at least one of the farthest exit point or an exit positioned between the entry point and the farthest exit point;
calculate a required fee for the user based on a distance between the entry point and the exit point; and
deduct funds necessary to pay the required fee from the payment account of the user.
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0075]: “In other transit systems, the per-ride charge may depend on distance traveled or zones traversed or the like. In such systems, the initial entry transaction merely indicates the starting point of the trip, and the user/rider is again required to engage in a transaction with a transit system terminal upon exiting from the transit system at the end of the ride. It is at the latter transaction that the fare for the ride is determined, and the corresponding amount deducted from the value stored in the mobile device 206. It will be appreciated that systems of this type may also offer weekly or monthly subscriptions or the like, or one- or five-day unlimited riding arrangements, etc., as an alternative to pay-by-the-ride.”)
In regards to claim 25,
25. (New) The transit payment system of Claim 24, wherein the payment account comprises at least one of a prepaid amount or a preauthorized amount, and wherein deducting funds comprises deducting at least one of the prepaid amount or the preauthorized amount from the payment account.
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0074]: “In addition or alternatively, the transit system may offer monthly or weekly fare prepayment options (which may be referred to as “subscription” options, and which may alternatively be for time periods other than a week or month). In such a case, the transaction between the transit entry terminal and the mobile device 206 may confirm that the mobile device stores data that evidences a subscription for the current time period.”)
In regards to claim 26,
26. (New) The transit payment system of Claim 24, wherein the payment reader is a first payment reader, and wherein obtaining information relating to the payment account of the user at the exit point of the transit system is based on at least one of the user tapping a payment device to a second payment reader of the transit payment system or a wireless communication between a payment device of the user and a second payment reader of the transit payment system.
(See Lishak, para. [0002]: “There are already existing methods of fare collection implemented by public transit service providers or the like. The fares are collected by fare payment terminals hereafter called “validation terminals,” installed at entry gates, exit gates or within service zones. These terminals calculate fare payments and validate the customer's access to services.”)
(See Saunders, col. 10, lines 30-38: “Transit accounts system 135 includes a transaction database 150 that stores information on individual customers' use of the mass transit system, based on the number of times the customer passes through gate terminals 165 located at the numerous mass transit stations. Specifically, database 150 maintains a running tally for each MT number entering or exiting the mass transit system so that every ride and/or distance traveled is recorded and stored in the transaction database for periodic tabulation into a single transaction.”)
(See Saunders, col. 12, lines 45-55: “A number of entry gate terminals 165 are connected to transit accounts server 145 at the mass transit operator, which serve as the locations at which riders gain access to and exit from the mass transit system. Although only a single gate terminal is depicted in FIGS. 1 and 2, the present invention accommodates a plurality of such terminals, located at each station in the mass transit system. Moreover, each station may contain numerous gate terminals, all electronically connected over a network to the mass transit server. These gate terminals 165 function as the points-of-sale for customers' use of the mass transit system.”)
(See Saunders, col. 12, line 56 to col. 13, line 3: “As illustrated in FIG. 3, each gate terminal 165 is configured to read transaction instruments linked to active MT numbers. That is, these terminals contain gates 305 or turnstiles 310 along with RFID readers 315 to detect the MT number stored in the payment device presented by the user for interrogation upon entry into and/or exit from the mass transit system (depending on which point the mass transit operator collects fares). The reader 315 at each gate terminal 165 detects the radio frequency signal emitted by the transaction instrument at a close distance. The readers of the present invention are compatible with the ISO-14443 protocol standard of certain RFID transaction instruments including, for example, those issued by the American Express Company for its ExpressPay™ platform, as will be described below in greater detail.”)
In regards to claim 27,
27. (New) The transit payment system of Claim 24, wherein the processor is further configured to:
register entry of the user to the transit system based on the obtained information at the entry point; and
register exit of the user from the transit system based on the obtained information at the exit point.
(See Saunders, col. 12, line 56 to col. 13, line 3: “As illustrated in FIG. 3, each gate terminal 165 is configured to read transaction instruments linked to active MT numbers. That is, these terminals contain gates 305 or turnstiles 310 along with RFID readers 315 to detect the MT number stored in the payment device presented by the user for interrogation upon entry into and/or exit from the mass transit system (depending on which point the mass transit operator collects fares). The reader 315 at each gate terminal 165 detects the radio frequency signal emitted by the transaction instrument at a close distance. The readers of the present invention are compatible with the ISO-14443 protocol standard of certain RFID transaction instruments including, for example, those issued by the American Express Company for its ExpressPay™ platform, as will be described below in greater detail.”)
In regards to claim 28, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 21.
In regards to claim 29, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 22.
In regards to claim 30, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 23.
In regards to claim 31, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 24.
In regards to claim 32, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 25.
In regards to claim 33, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 26.
In regards to claim 34, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 27.
In regards to claim 35, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 21.
In regards to claim 36, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 22.
In regards to claim 37, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 23.
In regards to claim 38,
38. (New) The computer-implemented method of Claim 35, further comprising prompting, by the transit payment system, the user to add additional funds to the payment account.
(See Lopez Alaniz, para. [0001]: “That is, some users of transit systems have low incomes and find it difficult to maintain adequate balances on the cards to satisfy their daily needs for access to the transit systems for their daily commutes and other travel via mass transit. Because of personal budgetary constraints, some users need to engage in frequent top-up transactions for their transit access cards so that they do not have an excessive proportion of their available financial resources tied up on their transit cards.”)
In regards to claim 39, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 21.
In regards to claim 40,
40. (New) The computer-implemented method of Claim 35, further comprising directing, by the transit payment system, the user to an alternate entry point positioned between the entry point and the farthest exit point of the transit system.
(See Saunders, col. 14, lines 8-15: “FIG. 4 is an exemplary block diagram of RFID reader 315 incorporated within gate terminal 165 of the mass transit operator, in accordance with the present invention. RFID reader 315 includes, for example, an antenna 405 coupled to a RF module 410, which is further coupled to a control module 415. As noted above, the antenna 405 may be positioned remotely from RFID reader 315 and may be coupled to RFID reader 315 via a suitable cable 325, or other connection.”)
(See Saunders, col. 14, lines 16- 34: “A protocol/sequence controller 420 may include an optional feedback function for notifying the user of the status of a particular transaction. For example, the optional feedback may be in the form of an LED, LED screen and/or other visual display, built into the gate terminal, which is programmed to light up or display a static, scrolling, flashing and/or other message and/or signal to inform the user that the transaction is initiated (e.g., the card is being interrogated), the transaction instrument is valid (e.g., card is authenticated), transaction is taking place, (e.g., MT number is being read by RFID reader) and/or the transaction is accepted or denied (e.g., MT number not listed or listed on closed account database). Additionally, such an optional feedback may be accompanied by an audible indicator (or may consist entirely of the audible indicator) for informing the user of the transaction status. The audible feedback may be a simple tone, multiple tones, musical indicator, and/or voice indicator programmed to signify when the fob is being interrogated, the transaction status, or the like.”)
The Examiner interprets that it would be obvious that such a transaction denied message could include info that the transaction is denied because current entry point is closed, and also info about alternate entry points (nearby stations) that are open, because the system knows the location of the customer and the status of the entry points.
Conclusion
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
February 13, 2025