DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are presented on 03/28/2025 for examination on merits.
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 .
Examiner's Instructions for filing Response to this Office Action
When the Applicant submits amendments regarding to the claims in response the Office Action, the Examiner would appreciate Applicant if a clean copy of the claims is provided to facilitate the prosecution which otherwise requires extra time for editing the marked-up claims from OCR.
Please submit two sets of claims:
Set #1 as in a typical filing which includes indicators for the status of claim and all marked amendments to the claims; and
Set #2 as an appendix to the Arguments/Remarks for a clean version of the claims which has all the markups removed for entry by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites an acronym “MIPI-DSI,” which should have been spelled out for formality reasons.
Claims 4-10 are a group of claims reciting limitations of “active operating mode” and/or “active mode” inconsistently. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-10 are a group of claims reciting limitations of “inactive operating mode” and/or “inactive mode” inconsistently. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Claim 9 contains a limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as it recites a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 9 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: par. 0106.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are determined by the following reasons:
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the context” in the wherein clause unclearly or lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites at least three instances of “display data formatted according to said protocol” without linking to each other. For example,
a display connected to the display interface bus and designed to receive display data formatted according to said protocol;
a second display controller exclusively controlled by the secure element, designed to provide display data formatted according to said protocol;
the multiplexer output providing display data formatted according to said protocol to the display.
The recitations of these instances are clear or lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites a second instance of “a transaction” in the clause “display information relating to a transaction initiated by an application executed by the application processor” without linking to the first instance in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites a second instance of “an application” in the clause “display information relating to a transaction initiated by an application executed by the application processor” without linking to the first instance in claim 1.
Claim 10 while depending from claim 1 recites a second instance of “a transaction” and a second instance of “a terminal” unclearly or lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites a second instance of “an application” unclearly without referring to the first instance in claim 1.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because they depend from the rejected base claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 20130013490 A13) in view of Fisher (US 20120150601 A1 A1), and further in view of Colnot (US 20140095387 A1) and Hammad (US 10657528 B2).
As per claim 1, Kelly teaches a connected terminal (Keller, FIG. 6 and par. 0110-0111: a mobile device 400 that comprises an active mobile wallet chip 479 and a passive mobile wallet chip 482; par. 0112-0113: connected to the payment terminal 500 via a network communication interface) comprising:
an application processor having a first display controller connected to a display interface bus conveying display data formatted according to a protocol of the display interface bus (Keller, par. 0100-0105: the mobile device 400…running the mobile wallet application 421 … capable of performing one or more functions …including communications with a display 430 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or the like) and a speaker 432 or other audio device, which are operatively coupled to the processor 410. These applications may also typically provide a graphical user interface (GUI) on the display 430. Note that the display interface bus is an inherited feature herein),
a display connected to the display interface bus and designed to receive display data formatted according to said protocol (Keller, par. 0027: a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows the user to select a payment vehicle to use for a transaction; par. 0100 and 0105: a liquid crystal display (LCD)…for a graphical user interface (GUI) on the display 430… receiving payment data according to data packet protocol…also identified as "PayPass" protocol);
a device interposed on the display interface bus (Keller, par. 0168: an output device for the contact payment interface 2915 may include a display that provides instructions regarding the steps for making a contact payment via a back-up payment module of a mobile device; the output devices may include one or more LEDs or an audio speaker, both which may indicate to the user that data has been successfully read from or written to the back-up payment module of a mobile device 400)…
However, Keller does not explicitly disclose it is by a secure wired bus that a secure element connected to the application processor and the second display controller exclusively controlled by the secure element. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Fisher teaches:
the device comprising:
a secure element connected to the application processor by a secure wired bus (Fisher, par. 0041: both the radio element 120 and the secure element 130 are internal to the mobile device 110 as illustrated [in] FIG. 6; par. 0043-0044: In one implementation, in which both the radio element 120 and the secure element 130 are internal to the mobile communication device 110, transmissions to the secure element 130 can take place using an internal wired communication channel, which is a secure wired bus; the secure element [is] disposed internally within a body of the mobile communication device 110).
Keller and Fisher are analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Keller’s system with Fisher’s teachings of using a secure element internally installed to the mobile payment device to improve the security. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with internally installed secure element on the mobile payment device.
However, Keller and Fisher as combined above do not explicitly disclose that the secure element exclusively control a second display controller and halt the application processor to make it totally inactive. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Colnot teaches:
a second display controller exclusively controlled by the secure element, designed to provide display data formatted according to said protocol (Colnot, the Abstract, par. 0016, and 0023: the secure input and output, a secure keypad controlled by a secure processor such as a master secure element or trusted execution environment; par. 0029: the system is operating in secure mode and prevent phishing although any data intercepted by malware running on host processor 115 typically cannot be introduced into SP 120. SP 120 is designed such that user data can only be entered through keypad 110/110a.)
halt the application processor so that it is totally inactive (Colnot, par. 0023: using a secure solution to … prevent the user from entering a [transactional] amount; par. 0028-0029: for example, an LED to inform the user that the system is operating in secure mode and prevent phishing although any data intercepted by malware running on host processor 115), or (Note that optional limitations are recited hereinafter)
inhibit circuits or components of the device that could serve an attacker to obtain information about actions performed by a 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 (Note that these optional limitations are omitted for examination purpose).
Colnot is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Keller-Fisher system with Colnot’s teachings of using a separately and exclusively controlled display controller. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with exclusively controlled display controller prevent phishing coming from the general mobile phone communications.
Regarding the use of a multiplexer controlled by the secure element, Colnot suggests the coexistence of secure and non-secure inputs and outputs wherein a secure keypad, for example, is controlled by a secure processor (par. 0016 and 0019). However, the combined references are silent about a multiplexer controlled by the secure element and the multiplexer output providing display data formatted according to said protocol to the display. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Hammad teaches:
a multiplexer controlled by the secure element and comprising a first input connected to an output of the first display controller via the display interface bus, a second input connected to an output of the second display controller, and an output connected to the display via the display interface bus the multiplexer output providing display data formatted according to said protocol to the display (Hammad, FIG. 3, a multiplexer unit 46 that selectively connects user interface 13 to I/O controller 45 of secure element 40 when secure element 40 is interfacing with user 1, and that selectively connects user interface 13 to I/O controller 15 of computer 10 when secure element 40 is not interfacing with user 1; see col. 11, lines 65-67 and col. 12, lines 1-34),
wherein the terminal is configured to, in the context of performing a transaction initiated by an application executed by the application processor and during execution of steps of the transaction assigned to the secure element (Hammad, col. 15, lines 4-35: display the decrypted dynamic payment information to the user; establish a second secure interface with user 1 at a later date to receive a request to obtain dynamic payment information, which may include receiving a selection of an pseudo-PAN account from the user, to encrypt this pseudo-PAN and an identifier of the secure element with an encryption key stored in medium 42, to provide this encrypted information to the companion application with an instruction that it is to send it to validation entity 80 (so as to obtain the dynamic payment information), to receive back an encrypted message from entity 80 by way of the companion application, to decrypt the encrypted message and extract the dynamic payment information).
Hammad is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Keller-Fisher-Colnot system with Hammad’s teachings of using a multiplexor for selectively connecting user interface 13 to I/O controller 45 of secure element 40. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with exclusively controlled display controller prevent phishing and/or malicious attacks coming from the general mobile phone communications.
As per claim 2, the references as combined above teach the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the device interposed on the display interface bus is a system-in-package or system-on-chip mounted on an interconnection support of the terminal (Keller, par. 0025 and 0086: a system-on-a-chip).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller, Fisher, Colnot, and Hammad, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ollivier (US 20180374392 A1).
As per claim 3, the references of Keller, Fisher, Colnot, and Hammad as combined above teach the terminal according to claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose the display interface bus is a MIPI-DSI bus. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Ollivier teaches:
wherein the display interface bus is a MIPI-DSI bus (Ollivier, par. 0069: a MIPI display serial interface (MIPI-DSI); see par. 0002 and 0004-0006 for conducting transactions on a mobile device).
Ollivier is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Keller, Fisher, Colnot, and Hammad with Ollivier’s teachings of using a MIPI display serial interface (MIPI-DSI). For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of communications with a MIPI display serial interface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-10 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.
Claim 4 recite elements of “wherein the secure element is configured to present an active operating mode and an inactive operating mode, and to: in the inactive mode, connect the display to the display controller of the application processor so that the display is managed by the application processor, and in the active mode, connect the display to the output of the second display controller so that the display is exclusively managed by the secure element, display information relating to a transaction initiated by an application executed by the application processor, then perform cryptographic calculations necessary for completing the transaction, the device further comprising a transaction validation device actionable by a user and exclusively accessible by the secure element, allowing the user to validate the transaction based on information related to the transaction displayed by the secure element, before the secure element performs the cryptographic calculations.” These elements and the features thereof in combination with the other limitations in claim 1, are not anticipated by, nor made obvious over the prior art of record.
Claims 5-10 are allowed by virtue of their dependencies on claim 4 as they further limit the scope of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as the prior art additionally discloses certain parts of the claim features (See “PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272.9953. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 7:30 A.M to 5:00 P.M EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl G Colin can be reached on 571.272.3862. 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.
/Don G Zhao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 07/15/2026
Prosecution Insights