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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e. process), claims 8-14 are directed to a system (i.e. machine), and claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent Claims: Claim 1
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a transaction terminal configured to process transactions; and
at least one application executable by the transaction terminal, wherein, when executed, the at least one application causes the transaction terminal to at least:
obtain from a client device a request to process a transaction on behalf of a virtual card linked to an account with an issuer service, the request associated with at least one of a verifier kit or a prover kit for a zero-knowledge proof algorithm;
transmit transaction details for the transaction to the client device, the transaction details comprising a transaction amount;
obtain a proof result from the client device;
validate the proof result from the client device using the verifier kit by verifying that the proof result indicates that the client device is authorized to complete the transaction; and
process the transaction in response to validating the proof result received from the client device.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercia or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites a process of transaction processing with validation including obtaining a request to process a transaction, provide transaction details, perform proof validation and process the transaction, which is a commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the claim recites zero-knowledge proof algorithm with a proof from a prover and validation of the proof from verifier, which describes mathematical relationships, mathematical formula or equations, mathematical calculations, and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped with the “mathematical concepts.” The claim is abstract idea because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a transaction terminal configured to,” “at least one application executable by the transaction terminal,” “a client device, “a virtual card,” “a verifier kit,” “a proof kit,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-7
Claim 2 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the at least one application, when executed, validates the proof result by further causing the transaction terminal to validate that the proof result contains at least one commitment parameter defining at least one restriction corresponding to the account with the issuer service.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites characteristics of the proof result. Therefore, the claims further recite the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The claim does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the at least one application, when executed, validates the proof result by further causing the transaction terminal to validate that the proof result accompanies the transaction details signed by a private key or certificate associated with the client device.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein, when executed, the at least one application further causes the transaction terminal to at least request at least one of a personal identification number (PIN) or a signature from a user.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein, when executed, the at least one application processes the transaction by verifying that the virtual card associated with the account is unrevoked by determining that a public key associated with the virtual card is not published on a distributed ledger as a revoked virtual card.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The non-underlined additional elements of “a distributed ledger”, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein, when executed, the at least one application further causes the transaction terminal to obtain the verifier kit from a distributed ledger.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The non-underlined additional elements of “to obtain the verified kit from a distributed ledger”, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent Claims: Claim 8
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
obtaining, by a transaction terminal from a client device a request to process a transaction on behalf of a virtual card linked to an account with an issuer service, the request associated with at least one of a verifier kit or a prover kit for a zero-knowledge proof algorithm;
transmitting, by the transaction terminal, transaction details for the transaction to the client device, the transaction details comprising a transaction amount;
obtaining, by the transaction terminal, a proof result from the client device;
validating, by the transaction terminal, the proof result from the client device using the verifier kit by verifying that the proof result indicates that the client device is authorized to complete the transaction; and
processing, by the transaction terminal, the transaction in response to validating the proof result received from the client device.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercia or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites a process of transaction processing with validation including obtaining a request to process a transaction, provide transaction details, perform proof validation and process the transaction, which is a commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the claim recites zero-knowledge proof algorithm with a proof from a prover and validation of the proof from verifier, which describes mathematical relationships, mathematical formula or equations, mathematical calculations, and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped with the “mathematical concepts.” The claim is abstract idea because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a transaction terminal,” “a client device, “a virtual card,” “a verifier kit,” “a proof kit,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 9-14
Claim 9 recites further details of the proof result. Claim 10 recites characteristics of the proof result. Claim 11 recites further details of the proof result. Therefore, the claims further recite the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
further comprising requesting, by the transaction terminal, at least one of a personal identification number (PIN) or a signature from a user.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein a public key associated with the virtual card is published to a distributed ledger by the issuer service when the virtual card of the client device is revoked by the issuer service, the method further comprising
verifying, by the transaction terminal, that the virtual card associated with the account is unrevoked by determining that the public key associated with the virtual card is not published on a distributed ledger as a revoked virtual card..
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The non-underlined additional elements of “a distributed ledger”, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
further comprising obtaining, by the transaction terminal, the verifier kit from a distributed ledger.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The non-underlined additional elements of “obtaining the verified kit from a distributed ledger”, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent Claims: Claim 15
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable by a processor of a transaction terminal, the program, when executed, causing the processor to at least:
obtain, from a client device a request to process a transaction on behalf of a virtual card linked to an account with an issuer service, the request associated with at least one of a verifier kit or a prover kit for a zero-knowledge proof algorithm;
transmit transaction details for the transaction to the client device, the transaction details comprising a transaction amount;
obtain a proof result from the client device;
validate the proof result from the client device using the verifier kit by verifying that the proof result indicates that the client device is authorized to complete the transaction; and
process the transaction in response to validating the proof result received from the client device.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercia or legal interactions and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites a process of transaction processing with validation including obtaining a request to process a transaction, provide transaction details, perform proof validation and process the transaction, which is a commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the claim recites zero-knowledge proof algorithm with a proof from a prover and validation of the proof from verifier, which describes mathematical relationships, mathematical formula or equations, mathematical calculations, and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped with the “mathematical concepts.” The claim is abstract idea because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable by a processor of a transaction terminal, the program, when executed, causing the processor to…”, “a client device, “a virtual card,” “a verifier kit,” “a proof kit,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites further details of the proof result. Claim 18 recites further details of the proof result. Therefore, the claims further recite the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein, when executed, the program further causes the processor of the transaction terminal to request at least one of a personal identification number (PIN) or a signature from a user.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The claim does not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein a public key associated with the virtual card is published to a distributed ledger by the issuer service when the virtual card of the client device is revoked by the issuer service, the method further comprising
verifying, by the transaction terminal, that the virtual card associated with the account is unrevoked by determining that the public key associated with the virtual card is not published on a distributed ledger as a revoked virtual card..
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with validation. The non-underlined additional elements of “a distributed ledger”, merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
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.
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 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 1, 7, 8, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 9,705,886B2 (“Sharma”)) in view of Hammond, F. (US 7,840,806B2 (“Hammond”)).
Per Claims 1, 8 and 15: Sharma discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, by a transaction terminal (Fig. 1, item 120) from a client device (Fig. 1, item 110) a request to process a transaction (Fig. 2, items 201/202; 13:50-14:5) on behalf of a virtual card linked to an account with an issuer service (7:21-38, 7:51-8:10, 13:8-18), the request associated with [protocol]… (abstract; 4:64-5:4, 14:5-9)
transmitting, by the transaction terminal, transaction details for the transaction to the client device, the transaction details comprising a transaction amount; (Fig. 2, items 120/205; 15:7-18)
obtaining, by the transaction terminal, [data] from the client device; (Fig. 2, items 120/202; 14:16-26)
validating, by the transaction terminal, the [data] rom the client device
processing, by the transaction terminal, the transaction in response to validating the proof result received from the client device. (4:64-5:4, 5:40-51)
Additionally, for claim 1, Sharma discloses a system (Fig. 1, system 100) comprising:
a transaction terminal configured to process transactions; and (Fig. 1, item 120; 11:4-14)
at least one application executable by the transaction terminal, wherein, when executed, the at least one application causes the transaction terminal to at least: (Fig. 1, item 120; 11:4-14)
Additionally, for claim 15, Sharma discloses a system (Fig. 1, system 100) comprising:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a program executable by a processor, the program, when executed, causing the processor to at least…(Fig. 1, item 120; 11:4-14)
Sharma discloses the request associated with a protocol based on the enhanced data interface (EDI) providing validation, authentication and payment processing between the transaction terminal and the client device (abstract; 4:64-5:4, 14:5-9). Sharma does not explicitly disclose the authentication based on at least one of verifier kit or a prover kit for a zero knowledge proof algorithm, nor does Sharma disclose obtaining a proof result and validating the proof result.
Hammond discloses request associated with at least one of verifier kit or a prover kit for a zero knowledge proof algorithm (Fig. 3; abstract; 2:30-47, 3:1-2, 4:29-34). Furthermore, Hammond teaches obtaining a proof result a prover device and validating the proof result from the client device using the verifier kit by verifying that the proof result indicates that the client device is authorized to complete the transaction (Fig. 3; 2:30-47, 4:41-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of secure authenticiation with enhanced data interface (EDI) interface providing validation, authentication, and payment processing of Sharma to incorporate the teachings of zero knowledge proof authentication, as disclosed in Hammond, to improve transaction security by providing authentication without transmitting the key, thereby preventing the key from being stolen or misused (Hammond: 1:43-45).
Per Claims 7 and 14: Sharma in view of Hammond discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Furthermore,
Sharma discloses:
wherein, when executed, the at least one application further causes the transaction terminal (‘verifier’) to obtain [module] from a distributed ledger Fig. 1, item 121; 10:32-36).
Hammond discloses the verifier kit being obtained for the verifier agent. (Fig. 3 ‘Verifier Agent’; 2:17-19, 3:1-5, 3:29-33, 3:46-47, 4:29-35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharma in view of Hammond to incorporate the teachings of zero knowledge authentication application, as disclosed in Hammond, to improve transaction security by providing authentication without transmitting the key, thereby preventing the key from being stolen or misused (Hammond: 1:43-45)
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Hammond as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 further in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0034834A1 (“Li”)).
Per Claims 2, 9 and 16: Sharma in view of Hammond discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore,
Sharma discloses:
wherein the at least one application, when executed, validates the [data] by further causing the transaction terminal to validate that the [data] contains [] at least one restriction corresponding to the account with the issuer service. (4:35-44, 11:4-14, 14:43-46, 16:26-36)
Hammond discloses the proof result (2:30-47, 4:41-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharma in view of Hammond to incorporate the teachings of zero knowledge authentication application, as disclosed in Hammond, to improve transaction security by providing authentication without transmitting the key, thereby preventing the key from being stolen or misused (Hammond: 1:43-45)
Sharma in view of Hammond does not explicitly disclose at least one commitment parameter defining restrictions.
Li discloses validating the proof result containing at least one commitment parameter (¶¶77-78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharma in view of Hammond to incorporate the teachings of zero-knowledge verification feature for validating zero-knowledge proof result comprising commitment data, as disclosed in Li, for privacy protection. (Li: ¶¶47)
Furthermore, the claimed expressions in claims 9 and 16, “wherein the proof result is verified to contain at least one commitment parameter defining at least one restriction corresponding to the account with the issuer service,” do not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the positively recited steps of claim 9 in a manipulative sense nor does the expression affect the recited medium in claim 16 structurally or functionally.
Per Claims 3, 10 and 17: Sharma in view of Hammond and Li discloses all the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16. Furthermore,
Li discloses:
wherein the proof result comprises the at least one commitment parameter. (¶¶77-78)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharma in view of Hammond and Li to incorporate the teachings of zero-knowledge verification feature for validating zero-knowledge proof result comprising commitment data, as disclosed in Li, for privacy protection. (Li: ¶¶47)
Claims 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Hammond as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 further in view of REESE et al. (US 2020/0167775A1 (“REESE”)).
Per Claims 4, 11 and 18: Sharma in view of Hammod discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore,
Sharma discloses:
wherein the at least one application, when executed, validates the [data] by further causing the transaction terminal to validate that the [data] accompanies the transaction details…(4:35-44, 11:4-14, 14:43-46, 16:26-36 )
Hammond discloses the proof result (2:30-47, 4:41-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharma in view of Hammond to incorporate the teachings of zero knowledge authentication application, as disclosed in Hammond, to improve transaction security by providing authentication without transmitting the key, thereby preventing the key from being stolen or misused (Hammond: 1:43-45)
Sharma in view of Hammond does not explicitly disclose the transaction details signed by a private key or certificate associated with the client device..
REESE discloses the transaction details signed by a private key associated with the client device. (¶¶40-41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharma in view of Hammond to incorporate the teachings of transaction details signed with a private key associated with client device, as disclosed in REESE, to provide transaction security (REESE: ¶5).
Furthermore, the claimed expressions in claims 11 and 18, “wherein the proof result is accompanied with transaction details from the client device, wherein the transaction details from the client device are verified to have been signed by a private key or certificate associated with the client device,” and the expression in claim 4, “transaction details signed by a private key or certificate associated with the client device,” do not move to distinguish over prior art as the expression does not affect the positively recited steps of claim 9 in a manipulative sense nor does the expression affect the recited medium in claim 15 structurally or functionally.
Per Claims 5, 12 and 19: Sharma in view of Hammond discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore,
Sharma in view of Hammond does not explicitly discloses:
requesting, by the transaction terminal, at least one of a personal identification number (PIN) or a signature from a user.
REESE discloses:
requesting, by the transaction terminal, at least one of a personal identification number (PIN) or a signature from a user. (Fig. 13; ¶123)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharma in view of Hammond to incorporate the teachings of requesting a personal identification number (PIN) from a user, as disclosed in REESE, to provide transaction security (REESE: ¶5).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Hammond as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 further in view of KAGA et al. (US 2019/0238344A1 (“KAGA”)) and Boivie et al. (US 9,223,965B2 (“Boivie”)).
Per Claims 6, 13 and 20: Sharma in view of Hammond discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore,
Sharma discloses:
wherein, when executed, the at least one application processes the transaction by verifying that the virtual card associated with the account is unrevoked…(4:35-44, 11:4-14, 14:43-46)
Sharma in view of Hammod does not disclose the verifier (‘transaction terminal’) determining that a public key is not published on a distributed ledger as revoked one.
KAGA discloses the verification terminal determining that a public key is not published on a distributed ledger as a revoked one. (Fig. 1, items 1100/1230, Fig. 9D; ¶¶2, 106-107, 121-122)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharma in view of Hammond to incorporate the teachings of verification of public key against public key revocation list, as disclosed in KAGA, so that it is impossible to impersonate to cause a transaction to be approved fraudulently (KAGA: ¶22).
BOIVIE discloses the virtual card comprising public key (Fig. 2, item 202/224; ¶¶20, 41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharma in view of Hammond and KAGA to incorporate the teachings of a public key associated with the virtual card, as disclosed in Boivie, to securely generate and manage a virtual card to be issued to and executed on a mobile device (Boivie: 1:21-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clark et al. (US 2016/0253663A1) teaches a method for performing transaction signing utilizing asymmetric cryptography and a private ledger.
NGO et al. (US 2020/0204372A1) teaches techniques for securely performing offline authentication.
von Behren et al. (US 8,196,131B1) teaches payment application lifecycle management in a contactless smart card.
Chitti (US 2009/0037326A1) teaches virtual card selector for a portable electronic device.
Hopkins (US 5,757,918) teaches authentication of a smart card (“prover”) with a POS terminal (“verifier”) using zero knowledge proving process.
Muftic (US 10,535,065B2) teaches secure payment transactions based on the public bankcard ledger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8-4 PM EST.
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, John W. Hayes can be reached on (571)272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENYUH KUO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights