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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 6, 2025 and December 15, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on May 6, 2025 are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the vehicle and the energy supply terminal communicate through the charging cable using ISO 15118”. ISO standards change over time, and the standard might change in the future. In the case that the standard change, applicant could not have had possession of it at the time of filing. See MPEP 2163.02.
“Whenever the issue arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, inventor was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was "ready for patenting" such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by "whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it").”
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.
Claim 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the vehicle and the energy supply terminal communicate through the charging cable using ISO 15118”. Because more than one version of the ISO 15118 standard exists, Examiner was unable to ascertain which version Applicant is referring. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.02
“If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 966 F.3d 1374, 1378-81, 2020 USPQ2d 10865 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court affirmed a district court’s finding of indefiniteness based upon a detailed analysis of the claim language itself as well as intrinsic and extrinsic evidence).”
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-14) and a machine (claim 15).Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a user device from an energy supply terminal, transaction data comprising an energy provider identifier for a transaction to provide energy from the energy supply terminal to a vehicle;
determining, using the user device, a credential;
transmitting, by the user device to a secure remote transaction server, the energy provider identifier, and a selection of the credential, wherein the secure remote transaction server initiates transmission of an authorization request message comprising the energy provider identifier, the credential or a token corresponding to the credential, and an amount; and
receiving, by the user device from the secure remote transaction server, a message indicating authorization for the transaction.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of authorizing a transaction by receiving transaction data comprising provider identifier, determining a credential and transmitting the identifier and the credential for authorization. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 1 recite the additional element of sales activities or behaviors; business relations. Independent claim 15 recite the additional elements of a user device, a processor a non-transitory computer readable medium, an energy supply terminal and a secure remote transaction server. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of a user device, a processor a non-transitory computer readable medium, an energy supply terminal and a secure remote transaction server in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a user device, a processor a non-transitory computer readable medium, an energy supply terminal and a secure remote transaction server) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-14 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that the energy comprises electricity and indicating that the energy provider identifier is an electricity provider identifier. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that the user device receives the transaction data from the energy supply terminal via the vehicle. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4-5 further refine the abstract idea by describing the user device (e.g., is part of the vehicle) and further describing the vehicle. Theses claim fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6-7 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that the selection of the credential includes the credential and includes an identifier for the credential, wherein the credential is stored by the secure remote transaction server. Theses claim fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 further refine the abstract idea by indicating the user device receives the transaction data from the energy supply terminal via the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is temporarily connected to the energy supply terminal via a charging cable. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 further refine the abstract idea by indicating the vehicle and the energy supply terminal communicate through the charging cable using ISO 15118. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10-11 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that the secure remote transaction server initiates transmission of the authorization request message by generating the authorization request message and transmitting the authorization request message to an authorizing entity computer and by providing the transaction data to a transport computer which generates the authorization request message and transmits the authorization request message to an authorizing entity computer via a processing computer.
Dependent claim 12 further refine the abstract idea by indicating message indicating authorization is signed by the transport computer, and is transmitted by the user device to the energy supply terminal, which verifies the signed message indicating authorization. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 further refine the abstract idea by indicating the user device receives the transaction data from the energy supply terminal via the vehicle, wherein the vehicle provides the transaction data to the user device. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 further refine the abstract idea providing the transaction data from the vehicle to the user device via a short-range wireless communication medium, or via a machine readable code. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laracey (US 2011/0251892 A1) in view of Ahern et al. (Electric Vehicle Charging Open Payment Framework with ISO 15118).
Regarding claims 1 and 15: Laracey disclose:
Claim 1: A method comprising:
Claim 15: A user device (See Laracey, Fig. 7) comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium (See Laracey, Fig. 7; [0096]), the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the processor for performing operations comprising:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a user device from an energy supply terminal, transaction data comprising an energy provider identifier for a transaction; (See at least Laracey, Fig. 4A-C; [0027]; [0029-0030]; [0035] where transaction data comprising energy provider indetifier (i.e., checkout identifier/merchant identifier) for a transaction is received (e.g., when user scan, captures or enter checkout identifier) by a user device (i.e., the mobile device).)
determining, using the user device, a credential; (See at least Laracey, [0028]; [0030]; [0041] where a credential (i.e., payment option/proxy) is determined (i.e., selected) using the user device (i.e., mobile device).)
transmitting, by the user device to a secure remote transaction server, the energy provider identifier, and a selection of the credential, wherein the secure remote transaction server initiates transmission of an authorization request message comprising the energy provider identifier, the credential or a token corresponding to the credential, and an amount; and (See at least Laracey, [0030]; [0039-0041]; [0062] where the energy provider identifier (i.e., checkout identifier/merchant identifier) and a selection of the credential (i.e., desired payment account/payment credentials) are transmitted by the use device (i.e., customer’s mobile device) to a secure remote transaction server (i.e., transaction management system 130), wherein the secure remote transaction server initiates transmission of an authorization request message (i.e., creates an authorization approval request message).)
receiving, by the user device from the secure remote transaction server, a message indicating authorization for the transaction. (See at least Laracey, [0039] where a message indicating authorization for the transaction (i.e., a payment authorization request message) is received by the user device (i.e., customer’s mobile device) from the secure remote transaction server (i.e., from transaction management system 130).)
Laracey disclose means for using mobile devices to conduct payment transactions at merchant locations where the customer's actual payment credentials are never provided to a merchant. (See Laracey, [0016]; [0018]). However, Laracey does not explicitly disclose that the transaction to provide energy from the energy supply terminal to a vehicle.
Boot, on the other hand teaches that the transaction to provide energy from the energy supply terminal to a vehicle. (See at least Ahern, p.12; p.15; Authorization of the transaction is completed and the charging session begins).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself, that is, in the substitution of the type of transaction (e.g., general transaction, transaction to provide energy to a vehicle) is/are being performed. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the energy comprises electricity, the energy supply terminal is an electricity supply terminal and the energy provider identifier is an electricity provider identifier. (See at least Ahern, p. 15; the energy comprises electricity, (i.e., electricity) the energy supply terminal (i.e., charge point operator) is an electricity supply terminal (i.e., mobility operator) and the energy provider identifier is an electricity provider identifier (i.e., the eMobility Account ID, or EMAID).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laracey and include Ahern’s teachings in order to improve the integration and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the user device receives the transaction data from the energy supply terminal via the vehicle. (See at least Ahern, p. 19; The EV can communicate with the driver either on the dash display or a mobile app, tracking the payment process and allowing the driver to accept payment rates and initiate or halt a charging session.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laracey and include Ahern’s teachings in order to improve the integration and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the user device is part of the vehicle. (See at least Ahern, p. 17 Identify the EV or driver as a device or driver.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laracey and include Ahern’s teachings in order to improve the integration and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the vehicle is a car. (See at least Ahern, p.8; The driver parks the car in the EV charging station, sets up the car to begin charging, and goes inside to shop.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laracey and include Ahern’s teachings in order to improve the integration and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the selection of the credential includes the credential. (See at least Laracey, Fig. 4C; [0041] the actual payment credentials associated with the selected account.)
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the selection of the credential includes an identifier for the credential, wherein the credential is stored by the secure remote transaction server. (See at least Laracey, [0040-0041]; where the selection of the credential includes an identifier for the credential (i.e., a payment account identifier identifying the payment account selected by the customer) wherein the credential is stored by the secure remote transaction server (i.e., previously stored in the transaction management system).)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the user device receives the transaction data from the energy supply terminal via the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is temporarily connected to the energy supply terminal via a charging cable. (See at least Ahern, p. 19; p. 14; The EV can communicate with the driver either on the dash display or a mobile app, tracking the payment process and allowing the driver to accept payment rates and initiate or halt a charging session; When a charging cable is plugged into the car, the charging station sends its LEAF certificate to the EV using ISO 15118.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laracey and include Ahern’s teachings in order to improve the integration and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 8. The combination further disclose; wherein the vehicle and the energy supply terminal communicate through the charging cable using ISO 15118. (See at least Ahern, pp. 12, 14-15; Fig. 3 ISO 15118 specifies digital communication standards for all parties involved,32 allowing an EV and the EV charging station (electric vehicle supply equipment [EVSE]) to talk to each other).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laracey and include Ahern’s teachings in order to improve the integration and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the secure remote transaction server initiates transmission of the authorization request message by generating the authorization request message and transmitting the authorization request message to an authorizing entity computer. (See at least Laracey, [0039-0040]; wherein the secure remote transaction server initiates transmission of the authorization request message by generating the authorization request message (i.e., the transaction management system 130 creates an authorization approval request message) and transmitting the authorization request message to an authorizing entity computer (i.e., to be submitted (via path 114) to the transaction management system 130.)
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the secure remote transaction server initiates transmission of the authorization request message by providing the transaction data to a transport computer which generates the authorization request message and transmits the authorization request message to an authorizing entity computer via a processing computer. (See at least Laracey, [0041]; The actual payment credentials are then transmitted from the transaction management system 130 to an account issuer or agent for authorization.)
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the user device receives the transaction data from the energy supply terminal via the vehicle, wherein the vehicle provides the transaction data to the user device. See at least Ahern, p. 19; p. 14; The EV can communicate with the driver either on the dash display or a mobile app, tracking the payment process and allowing the driver to accept payment rates and initiate or halt a charging session)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laracey and include Ahern’s teachings in order to improve the integration and efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laracey and Ahern as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kumart et al. (US 20170200160 A1).
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 11. The combination further disclose; message indicating authorization is transmitted by the user device to the energy supply terminal, which verifies the signed message indicating authorization. (See at least Laracey, [0039]; message indicating authorization is transmitted by the user device to the energy supply terminal, which verifies the signed message indicating authorization (i.e., the transaction management system 130 transmits a payment authorization request message to the customer's mobile device, enabling the customer to have a final opportunity to confirm or cancel the payment transaction, although this step is optional. The customer's confirmation or cancellation is transmitted from the mobile device 102 as a customer payment authorization message to the transaction management system 130 via path 114.)
The combination do not explicitly disclose; message indicating authorization is signed by the transport computer.
Kumar, on the other hand teaches; message indicating authorization is signed by the transport computer. (See at least Kumar, [0036]; In response to receiving the transaction cryptogram, the merchant terminal 111 generates a transaction authorization request message including the signed transaction cryptogram that includes the merchant defined transaction parameter(s), and transmits the authorization request message to the server 120/125 via the secure payments network/node 130A.)
Therefore, 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 above combination and include Kumar’s teachings in order to improve secure communication.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laracey and Ahern as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srinath et al. (US 11937082 B1).
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Laracey and Ahern disclose the method of claim 1. The combination do not explicitly disclose, however, Srinath teaches wherein the transaction data is provided from the vehicle to the user device via a short-range wireless communication medium, or via a machine readable code. (See at least Srinath, Col. 4 lines 62-67-Col. 5 lies 1-3; Claim 7; send the charging session data to the mobile device via the low power short range wireless point-to-point communication system. In many embodiments, the electric vehicle itself can communicate with an electric vehicle charger directly via a low power short range point-to-point communication system such as (but not limited to) a near field communication (NFC) system. In certain embodiments, systems and methods for secure electric vehicle charging can include an EV charger communicating with an EV via the power charger instead of and/or in addition to using wireless communication.)
Therefore, 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 above combination and include Srinath’s teachings in order to improve interoperability and provide more seamless charging experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160239833 A1 (Venugopalan): A method is provided for processing an electronic payment. The method comprises (a) receiving, by a server, a first electronic request for a first token from a cardholder's device, the server being in communication with a database storing payment credentials for one or more payment cards associated with the cardholder; (b) generating the first token using an identity of the cardholder's device and transmitting the first token to the device; (c) receiving a second electronic request for processing the transaction from a merchant terminal, said second request comprising the first token and a merchant terminal identifier; (d) generating a second token using the first token and the merchant terminal identifier and transmitting the second token to the merchant terminal; (e) receiving a third token and a transaction authorization request from a merchant acquiring bank; (f) validating the third token using the second token; and (g) upon the validation operation (f) being successful, submitting the transaction authorization request to a card issuing bank. Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights