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 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 1-8, 19, 20, 26-30 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 1 recites the limitation "the operator computing device" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 and 26-30 depend on claim 1; therefore, they suffer the same deficiencies.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the personal computing devices" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19; therefore, it suffers the same deficiencies.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 26, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 8120460 B1), and further in view of Bodensjo (US 20060236111 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 28, Zhu discloses an electronic key system for providing an electronic key for a physical space (electronic key to a mobile device, col. 2, lines 58-63) comprising:
a transaction terminal (POS Terminal 108, col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 5); and
an operator computing system in communication with the transaction terminal (device comprising control system 110 and trusted service manager 128 to communicate with POS terminal, col. 4, lines 1-5);
wherein the transaction terminal is configured to communicate with a personal computing device of a user to which access rights are to be issued (The point-of-sale terminal can then transmit the electronic access code to the mobile electronic device via near-field-communications, col. 3, lines 4-14);
wherein the transaction terminal sends requests to the personal computing device for information from a digital identification of a user (confidential customer information including drivers license number stored, col. 6, lines 23-30) and send an access credential thereto (In block 210, the point-of-sale terminal 108, which is coupled to the inventory control system 110, transmits the electronic access code to the mobile device 102, col. 6, lines 43-47);
Zhu teaches use of Bluetooth to communicate with a user mobile electronic device (col. 6, lines 23-28). Bluetooth communications between devices are known to require consent (pairing request established with a passcode) to improve security of communications.
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 Zhu to include wherein the transaction terminal sends requests to the personal computing device for consent of the user to send the access credential thereto in order to improve security of communications.
Zhu fails to disclose wherein the operator computing device validates the information of the digital identification of the user with a public key of an issuer of the digital identification.
Bodensjo teaches use of public key cryptography, wherein a public key of an issuer can be used to validate data received with a digital certificate/signature of the issuer of the data (Para. 100).
From the teachings of Bodensjo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu to include wherein the operator computing device validates the information of the digital identification with a public key of an issuer of the digital identification in order to authenticate the digital identification received, thereby improve security.
Regarding claim 8, Bodensjo teaches use of public key cryptography, wherein a public key of an issuer can be used to validate information received with a digital certificate/signature of the issuer (Para. 100).
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 prior arts cited to include wherein the operator computing system is configured to validate the information received from the personal computing device via the transaction terminal with a public key of the user in order to authenticate the information received from the user.
Regarding claim 26, Zhu discloses the transaction terminal includes a controller; and a communications interface configured to communicate with a one or more short-range wireless communication devices (via inherent controller to operate short range communications with customer’s mobile device 102, col. 4, lines 51-58);
wherein the transaction terminal is configured to send, with the one or more short-range wireless communication devices, the access credential to the personal computing system of the user, the access credential to provide access to the physical asset (col. 4, lines 60-62).
Bodensjo teaches use of public key cryptography, wherein a public key of an issuer can be used to validate data received with a digital certificate/signature of the issuer of the data (Para. 100).
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 prior arts cited to include the access credential being digitally signed by the operator computing system in order to allow authentication of the access credential received.
Regarding claim 29, the prior arts cited teach wherein the transaction terminal does not send the access credential to the personal computing device if the information of the digital identification is not verified by the operator computing system (via data received not verified using public key of issuer, see teachings of Bodensjo in rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 2, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bodensjo, and further in view of Aharoni (US 20110208600 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 30, the prior arts cited fail to disclose wherein the transaction terminal further sends a request to the personal computing device for payment information, and the operator computing system validates the payment information via a payment gateway.
Aharoni teaches a system to validate payments from a customer including sending a request for payment information (The sales clerk adds up the total amount to pay and conveys it to the customer/payor, Para. 28), and an operator computing system validates the payment information via a payment gateway (The server knows to route the request to the customer's bank based on configuration data stored in the smart-phone at configuration time or the payor's account on the server. The payor requests payment by providing the amount and the name of the payee in a payment request sent to the server. At step (3), the payment server receives the request and can validate the payment request (e.g. sufficient funds) by accessing the payor bank directly or indirectly (e.g., through an intermediate service or proxy), Para. 28).
From the teachings of Aharoni, 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 prior arts cited to include wherein the transaction terminal further sends a request to the personal computing device for payment information, and the operator computing system validates the payment information via a payment gateway in order to ensure payments are made in full.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bodensjo and Aharoni, and further in view of Lin (US 20100078471 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the prior arts cited fail to disclose wherein if the operator computing system does not validate the information of the digital identification, the transaction terminal sends a further request to the personal computing system for information from another digital identification of the user, and if the operator computing system does not validate the payment information, the transaction terminal sends a further request to the personal computing system for other payment information.
Lin teaches a payment system to request for alternate payment options if one payment option received cannot be processed (Para. 137).
From the teachings of Lin, 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 prior arts cited to include wherein if the operator computing system does not validate the information of the digital identification, the transaction terminal sends a further request to the personal computing system for information from another digital identification of the user, and if the operator computing system does not validate the payment information, the transaction terminal sends a further request to the personal computing system for other payment information in order to facilitate reception of a payment in case of payment failure.
Claim(s) 4-7, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bodensjo, and further in view of Wagner (US 2016/0328707).
Regarding claims 4, 27, the prior arts cited teach the claimed invention, wherein Zhu teaches the consent is for the access credential to be sent directly from the transaction terminal to an operating system of the personal computing system (In block 210, the point-of-sale terminal 108, which is coupled to the inventory control system 110, transmits the electronic access code to the mobile device 102, col. 6, lines 43-47). But fail to disclose a digital wallet of the operating system of the personal computing system.
Wagner teaches a mobile device can be configured to include a digital wallet to store credentials (Para. 5-6, 31, 33, 55-56)
From the teachings of Wagner, 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 prior arts cited to include a digital wallet of the operating system of the personal computing system to store credentials received in a digital wallet.
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts cited teach the claimed invention, wherein Zhu teaches the transaction terminal sends the access credential directly to the digital wallet without requiring a further application be downloaded and operated by the personal computing device (col. 6, lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 6, Section VI.B of MPEP 2144.04 states that simply duplicating components of a device or process has no patentable significance unless the duplication leads to a new and unexpected result or solves a problem in a non-obvious way (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378).
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 prior arts cited to include wherein the transaction terminal is configured to communicate with another personal computing device and send another access credential to another digital wallet of another operating system of the other personal computing device, the other digital wallet having a different configuration than the digital wallet in order to process transactions with a different personal computing device associated with a different user.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu teaches wherein the consent is for the personal computing system to retrieve the access credential from the operator computing system (col. 6, lines 43-47 and rejection of claim 1 above). But the prior arts cited fail to teach a digital wallet to store the access credential.
Wagner teaches a mobile device can be configured to include a digital wallet to store credentials (Para. 5-6, 31, 33, 55-56).
From the teachings of Wagner, 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 prior arts cited to include a digital wallet to store the access credentials received in a digital wallet.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 21, 22, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bodensjo, and further in view of Aikawa (US 20090064296 A1).
Regarding claims 17, 18, Zhu discloses a method for providing an electronic key for a physical space (electronic key to a mobile device, col. 2, lines 58-63) includes:
receiving a physical presentation by a user of a personal computing device to a transaction terminal of an operator computing system of an operator of a physical asset (presenting mobile device 102 at POS terminal 108 of locks, col. 6, lines 23-30);
receiving, with the transaction terminal from the personal computing device, identification information of a digital identification of a user and another credential of the user (confidential customer information including drivers license number and phone number, col. 6, lines 23-30);
sending an electronic key with the transaction terminal directly to the personal computing device of the user (In block 210, the point-of-sale terminal 108, which is coupled to the inventory control system 110, transmits the electronic access code to the mobile device 102, col. 6, lines 43-47),
the electronic key being presentable by the user with the personal computing device to gain access to the physical asset (col. 1, lines 53-55).
Zhu fails to disclose validating, with the operator computing system, the identification information and the other credential; and upon validating the identification information and the other credential, sending the electronic key.
Bodensjo teaches use of public key cryptography, wherein a public key of an issuer can be used to validate data received with a digital certificate/signature of the issuer of the data (Para. 100).
From the teachings of Bodensjo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu to include the transaction terminal validating, with the operator computing system, the identification information and the other credential; and upon validating the identification information and the other credential, sending the electronic key in order to ensure information received from the user are authentic, thereby improve security.
The prior arts cited fail to disclose verifying, with the personal computing device, the identity of the user with biometric information.
Aikawa teaches use of biometric authentication to verify the identity of a user (If a positive result is obtained in this judgment, the biometric authentication controller 12 reports to the portable cellular phone controller 3 that the biometric pattern matches (SP12), and then terminates this comparison processing. Accordingly, the portable cellular phone controller 3 executes processing such as unlocking the portable cellular phone 1, Para. 33).
From the teachings of Aikawa, 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 prior arts cited to include verifying, with the personal computing device, the identity of the user with biometric information in order to prevent unauthorized use, thereby improve security.
Regarding claim 21, the prior arts teach the claimed invention, wherein Zhu teaches the personal computing device and the transaction terminal communicate the identification information, the other credential, and the electronic key directly via near field communication (col. 6, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 22, Bodensjo teaches use of public key cryptography, wherein a public key of an entity can be used to validate data received with a digital certificate/signature of the entity (Para. 100).
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 prior arts cited to include wherein the identification information and the other credential are digitally signed by the personal computing device with a private key of the user; wherein the method further comprises validating, with the transaction terminal or the operator computing system, the digital signature of the identification information and the other credential with a public key of the user in order to ensure the data received are authentic, thereby improve security.
Regarding claim 25, Zhu teaches the transaction terminal is incorporated into a housing of a kiosk that is configured to receiving a credit card for payment (The point-of-sale terminal 108 may be a cash register or other type of electronic reader used to complete customer transactions and is connected to the inventory control system 110 within the store 106, col. 4, lines 13-17).
Claim(s) 19, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bodensjo, and Aikawa, and further in view of Wagner (US 2016/0328707).
Regarding claim 19, 23, Zhu discloses the personal computing device stores the digital identification (confidential customer information, col. 6, lines 23-30), and the personal computing device further stores the electronic key with the digital wallet (col. 1, lines 53-55).
Wagner teaches a mobile device can be configured to include a digital wallet to store credentials (Para. 5-6, 31, 33, 55-56)
From the teachings of Wagner, 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 prior arts cited to include a digital wallet to store the digital identification and the electronic key.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bodensjo, Aikawa, Wagner, and further in view of Aharoni (US 20110208600 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the prior arts cited teach the operator computing system validates the identification information with a public key of an issuer of the digital identification (see teachings of Bodensjo, rejection of claim 17), but fail to disclose wherein the transaction terminal further sends a request to the personal computing device for payment information, and the operator computing system validates the payment information via a payment gateway.
Aharoni teaches a system to validate payments from a customer including sending a request for payment information (The sales clerk adds up the total amount to pay and conveys it to the customer/payor, Para. 28), and an operator computing system validates the payment information via a payment gateway (The server knows to route the request to the customer's bank based on configuration data stored in the smart-phone at configuration time or the payor's account on the server. The payor requests payment by providing the amount and the name of the payee in a payment request sent to the server. At step (3), the payment server receives the request and can validate the payment request (e.g. sufficient funds) by accessing the payor bank directly or indirectly (e.g., through an intermediate service or proxy), Para. 28).
From the teachings of Aharoni, 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 prior arts cited to include wherein the transaction terminal further sends a request to the personal computing device for payment information, and the operator computing system validates the payment information via a payment gateway in order to ensure payments are made in full.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights