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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitations that use the word means are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) are: “…comprising means for connection to a public or local network” as recited in claims 1 and 11. “Means for connection to a public or local network” is interpreted according to paragraph 57 of Applicant’s specification.
This application also includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a transaction control device actionable by a user and exclusively accessible by the secure element” in claim 1-2 and 11. The transaction control device is interpreted according to paragraphs 23-24 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controlling the demultiplexer by means of the secure element” in claim 14; “A method for performing a secure transaction on a public or local network by means of a connected terminal” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “The terminal” recited in claims 2-10 should be “The connected terminal” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the application processor might want to display under the effect of malicious software”. The usage of “might” can be indefinite language indicating a possibility of occurrence. It is unclear how the application processor “might want” to achieve the function of displaying the data. The examiner has interpreted the claims as best understood.
Claim 7 recites “the secure element is configured to… inhibit circuits or components of the terminal….”. The claim fails to distinctly claim how and what the secure element is inhibiting on the circuit of components of the terminal. It is unclear whether the secure element is blocking the circuit normal operation (software and/or hardware components) until certain conditions are met, overriding the software or hardware components of the circuit/components of the terminals, or disabling the active components of the circuit and the components of the terminal. The claim fails to particularly point the functions that is achieved by inhibiting. The examiner has interpreted the claims as best understood.
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the application processor might want to display under the effect of malicious software”. The usage of “might” can be indefinite language indicating a possibility of occurrence. It is unclear how the application processor “might want” to achieve the function of displaying the data. The examiner has interpreted the claims as best understood.
Claim 15 recites “configuring the secure element to… inhibit circuits or components of the terminal….”. The claim fails to distinctly claim how and what the secure element is inhibiting on the circuit of components of the terminal. It is unclear whether the secure element is blocking the circuit normal operation (software and/or hardware components) until certain conditions are met, overriding the software or hardware components of the circuit/components of the terminals, or disabling the active components of the circuit and the components of the terminal. The claim fails to particularly point the functions that is achieved by inhibiting. The examiner has interpreted the claims as best understood.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasily et al WO 2024072824 (hereinafter Wasily) in view of Ballesteros US 20150236756 (hereinafter Ballesteros).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Wasily
As to claim 1, Wasily teaches a connected terminal (Figure 4 reveals different hardware terminal components connected via a wired or wireless connection or cable assembly/connectors, see also paragraphs 27 and 32-33) comprising:
a human machine interface (Figure 4, reference number 104 “Phone Display” (a phone display is both a hardware device and graphical user interface)) including a display (Paragraph 26 discloses the phone display comprises a user-interface component that permit human interaction with the features of the smartphone baseband processor. The phone display may be a liquid-crystal display. The phone display may have a touch sensor, such as a digitizer or other mechanism by which a user may provide inputs to the phone display, such as by clicking, typing on an on-screen keyboard, drawing, writing) manageable by a control bus (Paragraph 27 reveals the phone display is connected to the smartphone baseband processor via a cable assembly that includes connectors, as shown in Figure 4, the cable assembly allows the terminal components to communicate and carry signal commands between the terminal components);
an application processor (Figure 4, reference number 102 “Smartphone Baseband Processor”; paragraph 6 reveals an application is executed/run on the smartphone baseband processor) comprising means for connection to a public or local network (Paragraph 33 reveals a wireless communication interface is configured to communicate with a corresponding interface of the smartphone baseband processor. Paragraph 5 discloses the communication interface may be a Bluetooth low energy transceiver or a wireless transceiver. Bluetooth is a short range wireless personal area network technology/local network), configured to perform the transaction (Paragraph 10 discloses a cryptocurrency transaction is sent by a smartphone application running on the smartphone baseband processor of the smartphone to a hardware crypto wallet),
a secondary processor (Figure 4, reference number 208 “Controller”; paragraph 35 discloses that the controller may be a microprocessor) integrating a display controller connected to the control bus of the display (Paragraph 35 discloses the controller is also a frame buffer that buffers human readable outputs for display on the phone display (The frame buffer could also be part of a microprocessor that receives the transaction visible representation per paragraph 35). The controller buffers the outputs so that they are properly renderable by the phone display. The frame buffer receives a visible representation of a transaction for presentation to a phone user. The frame buffer is loaded from the secure element via a direct serial interface. Thus, the controller 208 converts a visible transaction representation to a video/image stream over a display interlace (for example MIPI DSI)). The controller is connected to the phone display via the display interface multiplexer as shown in Figure 4);
wherein the application processor is configured to provide to the secondary processor data to be displayed (Paragraph 39 discloses the smartphone application [running on the smartphone baseband processor] may send the transaction to the hardware crypto wallet via the communication interface . The secure element of the hardware crypto wallet receives the transaction, parses the transaction, and generates a visible representation of the transaction. The visible representation comprises a transaction amount and a receiver address. The secure element sends the visible representation to the controller/second processor to be displayed (see paragraph 35)):
an embedded secure element (Figure 4, reference number 206 “Secure Element”, paragraph 19 reveals the secure element is an embedded device) connected to the application processor (Figure 4, reference number 102 “Smartphone Baseband Processor”) and to the secondary processor (Figure 4, reference, number 208 “Controller”) by a wired bus (Figure 4 reveals different hardware terminal components connected via a wired or wireless connection or cable assembly/connectors, see also paragraphs 27 and 32-33), the secure element being configured to perform certain steps of the transaction comprising at least one cryptographic calculation step involving a secret stored in the secure element (Paragraph 39 reveals the secure element sign the crypto-transaction using a private key. Paragraph 19 reveals the secure element stores the private key), the application processor being configured to, during the execution of the transaction, [send to] the secure element for the execution of the transaction steps assigned to the secure element (Paragraph 39 reveals the smartphone application[running on the smartphone baseband processor] send the transaction to the hardware crypto-wallet via the communication interface. The secure element of the hardware crypto-wallet receives the transaction, parses the transaction, and generates a visible representation of the transaction);
a transaction control device actionable by a user and exclusively accessible by the secure element (Paragraph 39 discloses a transaction control device such as a button/sensor that is pressed by the user. Figure 4 reveals sensor is accessible (coupled via cable connectors) to the secure element), and wherein
the secure element is configured to transmit to the secondary processor display data related to the transaction for which it is [sent] by the application processor (Paragraph 39 discloses the secure element sends the visible representation to the controller (block 508). The controller may frame buffer or otherwise generate a video or image and provide the video or image to the MUX which provide the image signal to the phone display), and
the secondary processor is configured to display the display data transmitted by the secure element (Paragraph 35 discloses the controller is also a frame buffer that buffers human readable outputs for display on the phone display (The frame buffer could also be part of a microprocessor that receives the transaction visible representation per paragraph 35). The controller buffers the outputs so that they are properly renderable by the phone display. The frame buffer receives a visible representation of a transaction for presentation to a phone user. The frame buffer is loaded from the secure element via a direct serial interface. Thus, the controller 208 converts a visible transaction representation to a video/image stream over a display interlace (for example MIPI DSI)). The controller is connected to the phone display via the display interface multiplexer as shown in Figure 4) with priority over display data transmitted by the application processor whereby the user does not see falsified display data that the application processor might want to display under the effect of malicious software (Paragraph 39 discloses per the interaction with the user button and sensor, the secure element may provide a signal to the MUX directing the MUX to disconnect the smartphone baseband processor from the phone display and connect the secure element to the phone display. The user interacts with the sensor (pressing a button, providing biometric information, or entering a PIN code) to confirm the visual representation of the transaction on the phone display is accurate. In response to the interaction, the secure element may sign the crypto-transaction using a private key and forward the signed transaction to the smartphone baseband processor via the communication interface. The secure element may provide a signal to the MUX directing the MUX to disconnect the secure element from the phone display and reconnect the smartphone baseband processor to the phone display).
Wasily does not teach, but Ballesteros teaches the application processing being configured to solicit the secure element (Paragraphs 32-33 disclose the application processor generates a request for a data transaction and the secure element received the request/solicitation).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wasily’s process of the application processor interaction with the secure element for the execution of the transaction with Ballesteros’ teachings of the application processor soliciting a request to the secure element such that the secure element may be operative to evaluate requests based on one or more security rules to determine whether request should be granted or denied (Paragraph 33 of Ballesteros).
As to claim 2, the combination of Wasily in view Ballesteros teaches wherein the transaction control device actionable by the user and exclusively accessible by the secure element comprises a monostable button for transaction validation actionable by the user at a moment when the secure element requests it (Wasily: Paragraph 39 discloses the transaction control device such as a button/sensor that is pressed by the user. Figure 4 reveals sensor is accessible (coupled via cable connectors) to the secure element) Paragraph 39 further discloses the user may interact with the sensor to confirm that the visual representation of the transaction on the phone display. Paragraph 38 discloses the sensor is controlled directly by the secure element (therefore the secure element provides signal request/controls the sensor/button).
As to claim 3, the combination of Wasily in view Ballesteros teaches wherein the monostable button is a virtual button on a touchpad (Wasily: Paragraph 39 discloses the transaction control device such as a button/sensor that is pressed by the user. The user may enter a PIN code on the phone display via a touch screen of the phone display).
As to claim 7, the combination of Wasily in view Ballesteros teaches wherein the secure element is configured to, during the performance of transaction steps assigned to it, inhibit circuits or components of the terminal that could be used by an attacker to obtain information about actions performed by the user or calculations performed by the secure element, such as an accelerometer, an inertial measurement unit, a camera, a current sensor, a voltage sensor, or other component that could allow an attacker to conduct a side-channel attack (Ballesteros: Paragraph 15 discloses the secure element is an intermediary to prevent potentially malicious commands and/or data at the application processor from directly accessing NFC controller, and vice-versa. Paragraph 29 also discloses the secure element may restrict and/or prohibit access by the application processor to sensitive data received by NFC controller from external device. This arrangement may help to prevent access by malicious code at application processor to sensitive data received at NFC controller from external device. For example, a virus at application processor may be unable to access sensitive data at NFC controller because the secure element may implement security rules that prohibit application processor from invoking NFC transactions needed to obtain that sensitive data from NFC controller. See also paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Wasily’s secure element and apply Ballesteros’ teachings of inhibiting components of the terminal that could be used by an attacker to obtain information about actions performed by the user to enhance the level of protection for the application processor and the NFC controller and other components of the terminal (Paragraph 51 of Ballesteros).
As to claim 8, the combination of Wasily in view Ballesteros teaches further comprising a visual indicator visible by the user, exclusively controlled by the secure element to be activated during the performance of transaction steps that are assigned to the secure element (Wasily: Paragraph 37 discloses the hardware crypto-wallet module include an indicator. The indicator may comprise another human-readable indicator device, such as a haptic feedback device. The indicator is connected to the MUX and operates to indicate which input is presently being provided to the phone display. For instance, the indicator may illuminate in response to the control signals from the MUX that is connected to the secure element).
As to claim 9, the combination of Wasily in view Ballesteros teaches wherein the application processor and the secondary processor are integrated in the same system-on-chip ( Ballesteros: Paragraph 21 reveals that the components in Figure 3 which include the application processor and the NFC controller are components on a system-on-chip).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Wasily’s terminal components with Ballesteros’ SOC to enhance the protection for the application processor and the NFC controller and other components of the terminal (Paragraph 51 of Ballesteros).
As to claim 10, the combination of Wasily in view Ballesteros teaches the terminal connected to the Internet (Wasily: Paragraph 33 reveals the components of the terminal are installed in a smartphone. A smartphone can be connected to the internet) and configured to perform crypto asset transactions on a blockchain (Wasily: Paragraph 39 discloses the smartphone application receives the signed transaction and publishes the signed transaction to a blockchain to complete a transaction).
As to claim 11, Wasily teaches a method for performing a secure transaction on a public or local network by means of a connected terminal (Figure 5 and paragraph 10 disclose method of performing a cryptocurrency transaction with smartphone having a crypto-wallet. Figure 4 reveals different hardware terminal components connected via a wired or wireless connection or cable assembly/connectors, see also paragraphs 27 and 32-33), the method comprising:
a human machine interface (Figure 4, reference number 104 “Phone Display”) including a display (Paragraph 26 discloses the phone display comprises a user-interface component that permit human interaction with the features of the smartphone baseband processor. The phone display may be a liquid-crystal display. The phone display may have a touch sensor, such as a digitizer or other mechanism by which a user may provide inputs to the phone display, such as by clicking, typing on an on-screen keyboard, drawing, writing) manageable by a control bus (Paragraph 27 reveals the phone display is connected to the smartphone baseband processor via a cable assembly that includes connectors);
an application processor (Figure 4, reference number 102 “Smartphone Baseband Processor”, paragraph 6 reveals an application is executed/run on the smartphone baseband processor) comprising means for connection to a public or local network (Paragraph 33 reveals a wireless communication interface is configured to communicate with a corresponding interface of the smartphone baseband processor. Paragraph 5 discloses the communication interface may be a Bluetooth low energy transceiver or a wireless transceiver. Bluetooth is a short range wireless personal area network technology/local network), configured to perform the transaction (Paragraph 10 discloses a cryptocurrency transaction is sent by a smartphone application running on the smartphone baseband processor of the smartphone to a hardware crypto wallet),
a secondary processor (Figure 4, reference number 208 “Controller”, paragraph 35 discloses that the controller may be a microprocessor) integrating a display controller connected to the control bus of the display (Paragraph 35 discloses the controller is also a frame buffer that buffers human readable outputs for display on the phone display (The frame buffer could also be part of a microprocessor that receives the transaction visible representation per paragraph 35). The controller buffers the outputs so that they are properly renderable by the phone display. The frame buffer receives a visible representation of a transaction for presentation to a phone user. The frame buffer is loaded from the secure element via a direct serial interface. Thus, the controller 208 converts a visible transaction representation to a video/image stream over a display interlace (for example MIPI DSI)). The controller is connected to the phone display via the display interface multiplexer as shown in Figure 4);
wherein the application processor is configured to provide to the secondary processor data to be displayed (Paragraph 39 discloses the smartphone application [running on the smartphone baseband processor] may send the transaction to the hardware crypto-wallet via the communication interface . The secure element of the hardware crypto-wallet receives the transaction, parses the transaction, and generates a visible representation of the transaction. The visible representation comprises a transaction amount and a receiver address. The secure element sends the visible representation to the controller/second processor to be displayed (see paragraph 35)):
an embedded secure element (Figure 4, reference number 206 “Secure Element”, Paragraph 19 reveals the secure element is an embedded device) connected to the application processor (Figure 4, reference number 102 “Smartphone Baseband Processor”) and to the secondary processor (Figure 4, reference, number 208 “Controller”) by a wired bus (Figure 4 reveals different hardware terminal components connected via a wired or wireless connection or cable assembly/connectors, see also paragraphs 27 and 32-33), the secure element being configured to perform certain steps of the transaction comprising at least one cryptographic calculation step involving a secret stored in the secure element (Paragraph 39 reveals the secure element sign the crypto-transaction using a private key. Paragraph 19 reveals the secure element stores the private key), the application processor being configured to, during the execution of the transaction, [send to] the secure element for the execution of the transaction steps assigned to the secure element (Paragraph 39 reveals the smartphone application[running on the smartphone baseband processor] send the transaction to the hardware crypto wallet via the communication interface. The secure element of the hardware crypto-wallet receives the transaction, parses the transaction, and generates a visible representation of the transaction);
a transaction control device actionable by a user and exclusively accessible by the secure element (Paragraph 39 discloses a transaction control device such as a button/sensor that is pressed by the user. Figure 4 reveals sensor is accessible (coupled via cable connectors) to the secure element), and wherein
the secure element is configured to transmit to the secondary processor display data related to the transaction for which it is solicited[sent] by the application processor (Paragraph 39 discloses the secure element sends the visible representation to the controller (block 508). The controller may frame buffer or otherwise generate a video or image and provide the video or image to the MUX which provide the image signal to the phone display), and
the secondary processor is configured to display the display data transmitted by the secure element (Paragraph 35 discloses the controller is also a frame buffer that buffers human readable outputs for display on the phone display (The frame buffer could also be part of a microprocessor that receives the transaction visible representation per paragraph 35). The controller buffers the outputs so that they are properly renderable by the phone display. The frame buffer receives a visible representation of a transaction for presentation to a phone user. The frame buffer is loaded from the secure element via a direct serial interface. Thus, the controller 208 converts a visible transaction representation to a video/image stream over a display interlace (for example MIPI DSI)). The controller is connected to the phone display via the display interface multiplexer as shown in Figure 4) with priority over display data transmitted by the application processor whereby the user does not see falsified display data that the application processor might want to display under the effect of malicious software (Paragraph 39 discloses per the interaction with the user button and sensor, the secure element may provide a signal to the MUX directing the MUX to disconnect the smartphone baseband processor from the phone display and connect the secure element to the phone display. The user interacts with the sensor (pressing a button, providing biometric information, or entering a PIN code) to confirm the visual representation of the transaction on the phone display is accurate. In response to the interaction, the secure element may sign the crypto-transaction using a private key and forward the signed transaction to the smartphone baseband processor via the communication interface. The secure element may provide a signal to the MUX directing the MUX to disconnect the secure element from the phone display and reconnect the smartphone baseband processor to the phone display).
Wasily does not teach, but Ballesteros teaches the application processing being configured to solicit the secure element (Paragraphs 32-33 disclose the application processor generates a request for a data transaction and the secure element received the request/solicitation).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wasily’s process of the application processor interaction with the secure element for the execution of the transaction with Ballesteros’ teachings of the application processor soliciting a request to the secure element such that the secure element may be operative to evaluate requests based on one or more security rules to determine whether request should be granted or denied (paragraph 33 of Ballesteros).
As to claim 15, the combination of Wasily in view Ballesteros teaches comprising the steps of configuring the secure elements do, during the performance of transaction steps assigned to it, inhibit circuits or components of the terminal that could be used by an attacker to obtain information about actions performed by the user or calculations performed by the secure element, such as an accelerometer, an inertial measurement unit, a camera, a current sensor, a voltage sensor, or other component that could allow an attacker to conduct a side-channel attack (Ballesteros: Paragraph 15 discloses the secure element is an intermediary to prevent potentially malicious commands and/or data at the application processor from directly accessing NFC controller, and vice-versa. Paragraph 29 also discloses the secure element may restrict and/or prohibit access by the application processor to sensitive data received by NFC controller from external device. This arrangement may help to prevent access by malicious code at application processor to sensitive data received at NFC controller from external device. For example, a virus at application processor may be unable to access sensitive data at NFC controller because the secure element may implement security rules that prohibit application processor from invoking NFC transactions needed to obtain that sensitive data from NFC controller. See also paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Wasily’s secure element and apply Ballesteros’ teachings of inhibiting components of the terminal that could be used by an attacker to obtain information about actions performed by the user to enhance the level of protection for the application processor and the NFC controller and other components of the terminal (Paragraph 51 of Ballesteros).
As to claim 16, the combination of Wasily in view Ballesteros teaches further comprising the steps of: providing a visual indicator visible by the user, exclusively controlled by the secure element and configuring the secure element so that it activates the visual indicator during the performance of transaction steps that are assigned to it (Wasily: Paragraph 37 discloses the hardware crypto-wallet module include an indicator. The indicator may comprise another human-readable indicator device, such as a haptic feedback device. The indicator is connected to the MUX and operates to indicate which input is presently being provided to the phone display. For instance, the indicator may illuminate in response to the control signals from the MUX that is connected to the secure element).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasily et al WO 2024072824 (hereinafter Wasily), in view of Ballesteros US 20150236756 (hereinafter Ballesteros), and in further view of Lee US 20210026983 (hereinafter Lee).
As to claim 4, the combination of Wasily in view of Ballesteros teaches all the elements recited in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the transaction control device comprises a [button] actionable by the user (Wasily: Paragraph 39 discloses the transaction control device such as a button/sensor that is pressed by the user. A button can be used as a switch).
The combination of Wasily in view of Ballesteros does not teach, but Lee teaches wherein the transaction control device comprises a bistable physical switch, the secure element being configured to, in a first position of the switch, switch to an active mode and, in a second position of the switch, switch to an inactive mode (Paragraph 64 reveals that a secure switch transitions from an open state to a closed state. The open state results in the secure switch to disconnect the processor from the secure element (inactive mode). The closed state results in the secure switch to connect the processor to the secure element (active mode)).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the button in Wasily’s transaction control device in view of Ballesteros’ teachings of application processor solicitation to the secure element with Lee’s switch to allow for a user to minimize the time during which the processor of the electronic device is electrically connected to the secure memory and therefore minimize the likelihood that personal information stored in the secure memory can be stolen by malicious applications (Paragraph 8 of Lee).
As to claim 5, the combination of Wasily in view of Ballesteros and Lee teaches wherein the application processor is configured to, during the performance of a transaction, request the user to actuate the switch in order to place the secure element in the active mode, and the secure element, after having performed the transaction steps assigned to it, is configured to request the user to actuate the switch again in order to place it in the inactive mode (Lee: paragraphs 10 and 97 disclose the processor is configured to receive a user input for switching the switch from the first state to the second state while the switch is in the first state, to provide the encryption information stored in the memory to a secure application executing only in a second execution environment through a secure operating system of the second execution environment, when the switch is switched from the first state to the second state to generate an electrical path between the memory and the processor, to acquire signature information for a transaction based on the encryption information, and to provide the signature information acquired based on the encryption information to a signature request application). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 4.
As to claim 12, the combination of Wasily in view of Ballesteros teaches all the elements recited in claim 11 above and further teaches comprising the steps of: providing a [button] actionable by the user, forming all or part of the transaction control device (Wasily: Paragraph 39 discloses the transaction control device such as a button/sensor that is pressed by the user. A button can be used as a switch).
The combination of Wasily in view of Ballesteros does not teach, but Lee teaches wherein the configuring the secure element so that it places itself in an active operating mode when the bistable physical switch is in a first position, and in an inactive operating mode when the bistable physical switch is in a second position (Paragraph 64 reveals that a secure switch transitions from an open state to a closed state. The open state results in the secure switch to disconnect the processor from the secure element (inactive mode). The closed state results in the secure switch to connect the processor to the secure element (active mode)).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the button in Wasily’s transaction control device in view of Ballesteros’ teachings of application processor solicitation to the secure element with Lee’s switch to allow for a user to minimize the time during which the processor of the electronic device is electrically connected to the secure memory and therefore minimize the likelihood that personal information stored in the secure memory can be stolen by malicious applications (Paragraph 8 of Lee).
As to claim 13, the combination of Wasily in view of Ballesteros and Lee teaches comprising the steps of configuring the application processor to, during the performance of a transaction, request the user to actuate the switch in order to place the secure element in the active mode, and configuring the secure element to, after having performed the transaction steps assigned to it, request the user to actuate the switch again in order to place it in the inactive mode (Lee: Paragraphs 10 and 97 disclose the processor is configured to receive a user input for switching the switch from the first state to the second state while the switch is in the first state, to provide the encryption information stored in the memory to a secure application executing only in a second execution environment through a secure operating system of the second execution environment, when the switch is switched from the first state to the second state to generate an electrical path between the memory and the processor, to acquire signature information for a transaction based on the encryption information, and to provide the signature information acquired based on the encryption information to a signature request application). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 12.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasily et al WO 2024072824 (hereinafter Wasily), in view of Ballesteros US 20150236756 (hereinafter Ballesteros), and in further view of Rizzo et al US 20140036723 (hereinafter Rizzo).
As to claim 6, the combination of Wasily and Ballesteros teaches all the limitations presented in clam 1 above and further teaches wherein the human-machine interface further includes a user input device controlled by a corresponding bus (Wasily: Paragraph 39 discloses the user may enter a PIN code on the phone display via a touch screen of the phone display. Paragraph 26 discloses the phone display comprises a user-interface component that permit human interaction with the features of the smartphone baseband processor. The phone display may be a liquid-crystal display. The phone display may have a touch sensor, such as a digitizer or other mechanism by which a user may provide inputs to the phone display, such as by clicking, typing on an on-screen keyboard, drawing, writing. Paragraph 27 reveals the phone display is connected to the smartphone baseband processor via a cable assembly that includes connectors), the terminal further comprising a [switch] arranged to connect the user input device bus to the application processor or to the secure element, the [switch] being controlled by the secure element (Wasily: Paragraph 36 discloses the hardware crypto-wallet module include display interface multiplexer (MUX)/switch. The MUX is operable to select between multiple inputs and provide the selected one of the multiple inputs on an output. The MUX is connected to the smartphone baseband processor and is also connected to the secure element. The MUX is controlled via a control line that is also connected to the secure element . In this manner, the secure element may operate line MUX to switch the data provided to the phone display from that of the smartphone baseband processor to that of the secure element so that a user may interact securely with the secure element. Stated differently, the MUX multiplexes the phone display between the smartphone baseband processor and the secure element in response to a control signal from the secure clement).
The combination of Wasily and Ballesteros does not teach, but Rizzo teaches that the switch is a demultiplexer arranged to connect the user input device bus to the application processor or to the secure element, the demultiplexer being controlled by the secure element (Figures 13-14 reveal SW that is arranged to connect the user input device bus to the main processor/application processor. Figures 13-14 reveal the switch is controlled by the secure element (SE1 and SE2). Paragraph 14 reveals the switch is a demultiplexer/multiplexer switch. Paragraph 177 discloses the main processor is configured to receive from an user interface an indication designating the auxiliary element which is chosen to be able to cooperate with the main element (NFC controller) in the low power mode. This indication is processed by the main processor and sent to the NFC controller through the I.sup.2C bus, and then to the secure element SE2 during a SWP transaction. See also paragraphs 67, 78- 79).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Wasily’s switch/multiplexer in view of Ballesteros’ teachings of application processor solicitation to the secure element with Rizzo’s teachings of multiplexer/demultiplexer to managing in a simple way, information exchange between a contactless element such as NFC controller, and several (at least two) auxiliary elements by using the already existing hardware technology without any modification of the software on secure elements provided with SWP-UICC technology (Paragraph 11 of Rizzo).
As to claim 14, the combination of Wasily and Ballesteros teaches all the limitations presented in clam 11 above and further teaches comprising the steps of providing, as an element of the human-machine interface further, a user input device controlled by a corresponding bus (Wasily: Paragraph 39 discloses the user may enter a PIN code on the phone display via a touch screen of the phone display. Paragraph 26 discloses the phone display comprises a user-interface component that permit human interaction with the features of the smartphone baseband processor. The phone display may be a liquid-crystal display. The phone display may have a touch sensor, such as a digitizer or other mechanism by which a user may provide inputs to the phone display, such as by clicking, typing on an on-screen keyboard, drawing, writing. Paragraph 27 reveals the phone display is connected to the smartphone baseband processor via a cable assembly that includes connectors), providing a [switch] to connect the user input device bus to the application processor or to the secure element, and controlling the [switch] by means of the secure element (Wasily: Paragraph 36 discloses the hardware crypto-wallet module include display interface multiplexer (MUX)/switch. The MUX is operable to select between multiple inputs and provide the selected one of the multiple inputs on an output. The MUX is connected to the smartphone baseband processor and is also connected to the secure element. The MUX is controlled via a control line that is also connected to the secure element . In this manner, the secure element may operate line MUX to switch the data provided to the phone display from that of the smartphone baseband processor to that of the secure element so that a user may interact securely with the secure element. Stated differently, the MUX multiplexes the phone display between the smartphone baseband processor and the secure element in response to a control signal from the secure clement).
The combination of Wasily and Ballesteros does not teach, but Rizzo teaches that the switch is a demultiplexer arranged to connect the user input device bus to the application processor or to the secure element, the demultiplexer being controlled by means of the secure element (Figures 13-14 reveal SW that is arranged to connect the user input device bus to the main processor/application processor. Figures 13-14 reveal the switch is controlled by the secure element (SE1 and SE2). Paragraph 14 reveals the switch is a demultiplexer/multiplexer switch. Paragraph 177 discloses the main processor is configured to receive from an user interface an indication designating the auxiliary element which is chosen to be able to cooperate with the main element (NFC controller) in the low power mode. This indication is processed by the main processor and sent to the NFC controller through the I.sup.2C bus, and then to the secure element SE2 during a SWP transaction. See also paragraphs 67, 78- 79).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Wasily’s switch/multiplexer in view of Ballesteros’ teachings of application processor solicitation to the secure element with Rizzo’s teachings of multiplexer/demultiplexer to managing in a simple way, information exchange between a contactless element such as NFC controller, and several (at least two) auxiliary elements by using the already existing hardware technology without any modification of the software on secure elements provided with SWP-UICC technology (Paragraph 11 of Rizzo).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Harris et al US 20090254986 (hereinafter Harris).
Harris discloses a connected terminal (Figure 1) comprising: a human machine interface including a display (Figure 1, reference number 65 “Display”); a secondary processor (Figure 1, reference number 62 “Display Controller”, see also paragraph 43); an application processor (Paragraph 41 and Figure 1, reference number 50 “Single Processor Core”); an embedded secure element (Figure 1, reference number 20 “Secure Process”, paragraph 41); and a transaction control element (Figure 1, reference number 72, and paragraphs 43, 45-46) as recited in claims 1 and 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA FARROW whose telephone number is (571)272-1856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30am-4:00pm (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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/F.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights