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 .
Priority
Receipt of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 is acknowledged in the parent application 17046628, now US Patent 11763307.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0001] should be corrected to show that “This application is a continuation application of U.S. Application No. 18/365,175, filed August 3. 2032, now U.S. Patent No. 12,321,941 …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “method”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “processing a transaction as well as authentication” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites transmitting a registration request including bibliographic details and a financial identifier of the user, wherein the bibliographic details include a non-financial identifier of the user; capturing authentication data of the user; transmitting the authentication data of the user; receiving transaction details associated with an electronic transaction initiated using an identifier of the mobile communication device in lieu of the financial identifier of the user; presenting the transaction details on the mobile communications device; obtaining a transaction approval from the user by re-capturing the authentication data of the user; and transmitting the transaction approval and the re-captured authentication data of the user to the validation server, wherein the electronic transaction is processed using the financial identifier of the user. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as a validation application executing on a mobile communications device of a user to a validation server via a secure connection, at least one processor, a memory, and a biometric sensor associated with the mobile communication device represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than ‘Apply it’ the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of processing a transaction as well as authentication.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of processing a transaction as well as authentication using computer technology (e.g. a validation application). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the limitations “financial identifier” and "non-financial identifier". It is unclear what a financial identifier and a non-financial identifier encompass beyond bibliographic details that are defined in the specification and non-financial identifier can be interpreted differently based on the method of identification such as a social security number is non-financial strictly speaking, but is easily used to identify financial identities or financial records and could be also defined as a financial identifier. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The specification does not provide a limiting definition of a financial identifier and it could be anything that would identify a user or it could be a strictly financial account identifier such as a credit card or account number, but the specification and claim limitations do not provide clarity. Accordingly, the claims are vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependencies from claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 6-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dimmick US 2020/0090182.
As per claims 1 and 20:
Dimmick discloses a method, comprising: transmitting, by a validation application executing on a mobile communications device of a user to a validation server via a secure connection, a registration request including bibliographic details and a financial identifier of the user, wherein the bibliographic details include a non-financial identifier of the user (¶¶ [0049]-[0050] “one or more of the following may happen when the consumer 102 completes the registration process: (1) mobile phone number and the card/account details can be stored in a database associated with the card-on-file service 110; (2) registration eligibility checks are verified by the service manager 106 (e.g. number of payment accounts/phones registered); and (3) a shared secret between the cardholder and the system can be created”, Fig 6A);
capturing, by the validation application, authentication data of the user using a biometric sensor associated with the mobile communication device (¶ [0041] “For example, the consumer may have previously registered one or more biometric identifiers, that may be stored in a database associated with the COF service”, see also [0110] “biometric authentication”);
transmitting, by the validation application to the validation server, the authentication data of the user (¶¶ [0049]-[0050], [0110]);
receiving, by the validation application from the validation server, transaction details associated with an electronic transaction initiated using an identifier of the mobile communication device in lieu of the financial identifier of the user (fig 1, ¶¶ [0055]-[0057], see also Fig 8 ‘720’ ‘722’);
presenting, by the validation application, the transaction details on the
mobile communications device (¶ [0057], Fig 1, see also Fig 8 ‘724’);
obtaining, by the validation application, a transaction approval from the
user by re-capturing the authentication data of the user (¶ [0058] “In step 5, the consumer 102 may confirm the transaction by entering their personal identifier (e.g., card PIN or a biometric identifier) and send it to the authentication channel 108 in a secure manner” Fig 1, see also Fig 8 ‘726’); and
transmitting, by the validation application, the transaction approval and
the re-captured authentication data of the user to the validation server, wherein the
electronic transaction is processed using the financial identifier of the user (¶ [0062], Fig 1, see also Fig 8 ‘742’).
As per claim 2:
Dimmick further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the validation application from the validation server, a payment confirmation for the electronic transaction (Fig 8 ‘756, ¶ [0041], [0143]).
As per claim 3:
Dimmick further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the validation server, a dummy transaction request message (Fig 8 ‘728’, ¶ [0150]);
transmitting, to the validation server, dummy authorization data and the authentication data of the user, wherein the financial identifier provided by the user is
verified by the validation server using the dummy authorization data and the authentication data of the user (Fig 8 ‘728’, ¶ [0150]); and
receiving, from the validation server, a registration confirmation after
the validation server verifies the financial identifier with an issuer of the financial
identifier (Fig 8 ‘728’, ¶ [0150]).
As per claim 4:
Dimmick further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an entry associated with a party to the electronic transaction is incorporated in the transaction details received from the validation server, wherein the entry associated with the party to the electronic transaction is displayed on the mobile communications device (¶¶ [0123], [0076], [0055], Fig 1).
As per claim 5:
Dimmick further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the validation application, a verification code upon request of the user, wherein the transaction details associated with the electronic transaction received from the validation server include the verification code (¶ [0050]).
As per claim 7:
Dimmick further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the authentication data comprises one or more of fingerprint biometric data, facial recognition biometric data or iris scan biometric data authenticating an identity of the user (¶ [0029] “Some non-limiting examples of biometric identifiers may include fingerprints, facial expressions, voice, palm prints, hand geometry, iris recognition, DNA, retina and odour/scent. In some embodiments, alternative identifiers may be used for authentication such as sound, a picture or a particular sequence of pictures or a behavioural pattern”).
As per claim 8:
Dimmick further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the validation application executing on the mobile communications device of the user is managed by the validation server (Fig 1, ¶¶ [0172], [0038]).
As per claim 9:
Dimmick further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transaction details associated with the electronic transaction are received via a push notification from the validation server (¶ [0081]).
As per claim 10:
Dimmick further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to transmitting the authentication data of the user, receiving a secret identifier at the mobile communications device (Fig 5 ‘226’, Fig 1 [0100] “shared secret, [0076]-[0077], [0057], Fig 1); and
transmitting, by the validation application to the validation server, the authentication data of the user along with the secret identifier, wherein the validation server verifies accuracy of the identifier for the mobile communications device using the secret identifier (Fig 5 ‘226’, Fig 1 [0100] “shared secret, [0076]-[0077], [0057], Fig 1).
As per claims 11-15 and 17-19:
Claims 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected under the rationales of claims 1-5 and 7-10, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Winfield-Chislett US 2023/0306394.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights