Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/066,317

CONTACTLESS CARD PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §DP§Other
Filed
Feb 28, 2025
Examiner
KIM, AHSHIK
Art Unit
2876
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Capital One Services LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1092 granted / 1239 resolved
+20.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
§102
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1239 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP §Other
DETAILED ACTION 1. This is the first action on the merits relating to U.S. Application Serial No. 19/066,317 filed on February 28, 2025. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 3. Applicant’s disclosure of related application information as described in paragraph [0001] is acknowledged. Preliminary Amendment 4. Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on October 24, 2025. In the amendment, claims 1-20 were canceled, and claims 21-40 were newly added. Currently claims 21-40 remain in the examination. Claim Objections 5. Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: please amend the following section “includes at least one of: a triple data encryption algorithm, an advanced encryption standard 128, a symmetric hash-based message authentication algorithm, a symmetric cypher-based message authentication code algorithm, or any combination thereof” to “includes at least one of: a 3DES (Triple Data Encryption Algorithm), Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 128, a symmetric Hash-Based Message Authentication (HMAC) algorithm, and a symmetric cypher-based message authentication code (CMAC) algorithm such as AES-CMAC or any combination thereof.” Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 7. Claims 21-23, 29-31, 37, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,657,754 B1 to Osborn et al. (hereinafter “754 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the following claim comparison would show. Instant Application 754 patent Claim 21 A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, using at least one processor, a personal identification number (PIN); comparing, using the at least one processor, the received PIN to a stored PIN; and generating, using the at least one processor, upon the received PIN matching the stored PIN, a cryptogram using a dynamic key, the dynamic key being formed using a counter value, the cryptogram including contactless card data encoded using the dynamic key. Claim 1 A method for dual factor authentication of a request for access to an account associated with a client includes the steps of: receiving an input personal identification number (PIN) from a user interface; engaging a contactless card, the contactless card storing a PIN associated with the client; communicating the input PIN to the contactless card; receiving, in response to a match of the input PIN with the stored PIN, a cryptogram from the contactless card, the cryptogram formed using a dynamic key of the contactless card, the dynamic key formed using a counter value maintained by the contactless card, wherein the cryptogram comprises contactless card data that is encoded using the dynamic key; communicating the cryptogram to an authenticating device; and authorizing the request in response to authentication of the cryptogram by the authenticating device. Claim 22 The method of claim 21, wherein a contactless card is configured to generate the cryptogram. See claim 1 above (included in claim 1). Claim 23 The method of claim 22, wherein the contactless card is configured to maintain the counter value. See claim 1 above (included in claim 1). As shown in the claim comparison above, the limitation of claim 21 of the instant application is fully disclosed in claim 1 of 754 patent (see the underlined section). Although claims are not verbatim identical, all steps of claim 21 are disclosed in the corresponding claim of 754 patent. Since claim 1 of 754 patent is comprised of additional limitations, the scope of claim 21 of the instant application is broader. Claims 29-31 are limited to a system but identical to the method claim. Claims 37-38 are limited to a computer program product and they are identical to the method claim. In the art of smart card, a transaction system utilizing the card, the method, the device, the system and the computer program are generally considered as the same subject matter. See the claims of US 11,080,961 for example. Allowable Subject Matter 8. Claims 24-28, 32-36, 39, and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims are directed at a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, using at least one processor, a personal identification number (PIN); comparing, using the at least one processor, the received PIN to a stored PIN; and generating, using the at least one processor, upon the received PIN matching the stored PIN, a cryptogram using a dynamic key, the dynamic key being formed using a counter value, the cryptogram including contactless card data encoded using the dynamic key wherein the counter value is associated with a transaction. This is a combination of claims 21 and 24 as an example. The limitations in other objected claims are also allowable. Conclusion The pertinent prior arts made of record but not relied are listed in the attached form PTO-892. These are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is respectfully suggested to carefully review these references. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ahshik Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2393. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday thru Friday. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571)273-2393. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael G. Lee, can be reached on (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for this Group is (571)273-8300. Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [ahshik.kim@uspto.gov]. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89. 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. /AHSHIK KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 February 26, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP, §Other (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596896
SYSTEM AND METHOD TO DETERMINE AND HIGHLIGHT DEFECTIVE LABELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591851
ADAPTIVE RFID INVENTORY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585901
THUMB-TRIGGERED WEARABLE DEVICE AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12554959
Reading an RFID transponder on an object in an apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12554945
ELECTROMAGNETIC COUPLER ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1239 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month