Registers – Systems controlled by data bearing records – Operations analysis
Reexamination Certificate
2001-04-06
2004-06-08
Lee, Michael G. (Department: 2876)
Registers
Systems controlled by data bearing records
Operations analysis
C235S375000, C235S382000, C235S382500, C235S383000, C705S064000, C705S075000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06745935
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to automatic transaction systems that deliver goods or service by means of a machine exchanging information with a portable object which is debited by a given amount or value in consideration for the delivery of goods or service.
2. Discussion of Prior Art
The machine can be an automatic dispenser, e.g. for dispensing confectionery or drinks, or it can be a device for providing a service, for example controlled access implemented by opening a turnstile so as to give a traveller access to a transport system. Below, the term “delivery of goods” is sometimes used for short, but it should be understood that the invention naturally covers a much wider range of applications, including the delivery of all sorts of services.
In the same manner, although the portable object considered by way of example is a microcircuit card, the invention can also be applied to other types of portable object, such as magnetic cards or travel tickets, e.g. in the form of a magnetic coupon or the like. Nevertheless, it is preferred to use a microcircuit card, given the very high degree of security and reliability that is made possible thereby.
Goods or service is delivered as the result of implementing a transaction during which the card is temporarily coupled to the machine to enable information to be exchanged between the card and the machine, with payment being performed at least in part by modifying information stored in the memory of the card, which information is representative of the value contained in the card.
Coupling can be achieved between the card and the machine in various known ways, with or without metallic contact, and it is shown that the invention applies most advantageously to coupling of the so-called “contactless” type. With that type of coupling, there exists a non-negligible risk of communication between the card and the machine being interrupted in unexpected manner, e.g. because the card has moved out of the range of the machine before processing had been completed, or because of some temporary disturbance, e.g. the passage of a mass of metal close by, or indeed because the user passes the card too quickly in front of the machine to enable information to be interchanged in satisfactory manner.
The event that interrupts a transaction can equally well be accidental or deliberate, for example the user might deliberately seek to obtain delivery while nevertheless preventing the corresponding amount from being debited from the card.
In the context of an automatic transaction system of the kind described above, one of the objects of the invention is to associate payment (i.e. debiting of the card) with delivery in such a manner as to preserve not only the interests of the purchaser (user) but also those of the vendor (the operator of the machine), even if an event should interrupt the transaction or prevent payment being achieved.
Until now, the problem has usually been dealt with in one of the following ways:
no action is taken technically, so the event has to be dealt with by some human procedure;
the card is temporarily prevented from being withdrawn by the user, and the machine debits the card if and only if the goods or service is indeed delivered (this applies for example to machines in which the card is hidden by a flap or is “swallowed” while the transaction is taking place); and
the card remains accessible to the purchaser: this avoids the need to provide an expensive mechanism which slows down the transaction and is in any event inapplicable to transactions that take place without contact. However special precautions then need to be taken.
The third situation, in which the card remains physically accessible to the user leads to one or other of the following situations:
debiting takes place after delivery: the purchaser can attempt to prevent debiting, e.g. by withdrawing the card immediately after delivery or by making debiting impossible in some other way (e.g. by insulating one of the contact areas of the card's microcircuit by means of a piece of adhesive); this can be acceptable if delivery is intrinsically spread out in time, for example a telephone call, in which case the advantage gained by such fraud is highly limited; however it is unsatisfactory if the machine delivers an article or opens a turnstile; and
debit takes place prior to delivery: under such circumstances, there is a risk of the purchaser being out-of-pocket because payment has taken place by information being interchanged over a communications channel that can be interrupted by the card being extracted or moving too far away; in other words it is possible that the card is debited but that the machine does not deliver goods or service since the debit is not confirmed.
The invention lies in the general context corresponding to the last-mentioned situation above, i.e. the situation in which the card is debited prior to delivery.
In the most general terms, a transaction takes place as follows:
10) the machine causes the card to be debited;
20) the card modifies its monetary value information (or some equivalent value in terms of “tokens”);
30) the card confirms to the machine that debiting has indeed taken place, i.e. that the monetary value in its memory has indeed been modified; and
40) the machine delivers the goods or service.
As will readily be understood, if the interchange between the card and the machine happens to be interrupted during step 30, then the purchaser will be out-of-pocket.
To mitigate that drawback, various practices have been used in the past:
if the purchaser withdraws the card in the middle of a transaction, it is the purchaser who is considered as being at fault and it is the purchaser who is liable to be penalized; in the event of the purchaser making a complaint, more-or-less arbitrary procedures are provided for indemnifying the user or for establishing means for determining after the event whether the transaction recorded in the card was indeed followed by delivery by the machine;
the purchaser is debited in small amounts only while delivery is taking place, so if the purchaser is indeed out-of-pocket, then the amount involved will be small and can be accepted: that solution is entirely suitable for delivering fluids or telephone calls, but it is impractical for delivering articles or for giving access to a transport network; and
a system is provided such that if the current transaction is interrupted with prejudice to the purchaser, then in a subsequent “resumption” transaction, the goods or service can indeed be delivered, but without any further payment, i.e. without debiting the card again.
This third solution is a known practice as used for example in electronic purses complying with the draft European standard EN 1546.
In such known circumstances, if payment has taken place, and if the user who has not obtained delivery restarts the transaction on the same machine, and if the new transaction (resumed transaction) is carried through successfully, then goods or service will indeed be delivered for fair payment.
Known systems for implementing a resumption transaction nevertheless share the following drawback.
If communication between the machine and the card is interrupted during above step 30, and if the user does not re-establish the link between the card and the same machine, then the user will be out-of-pocket.
In particular, when a plurality of machines exist close together for delivering identical goods or service (for example a row of turnstiles giving access to a transport network), a client who has passed a contactless card rather too fast and who finds that the turnstile has not opened, will often try again at an adjacent turnstile, i.e. using a machine other than the machine on which the initial transaction was begun. The second machine will debit the client even if the first machine has already made the same debit, such that the purchaser will be debited twice for single delivery of the same goods or service (one opening of the turnstile).
It is possible to mitigate that dr
Grieu François
Mardinian Gregory
Kim Ahshik
Lee Michael G.
Regie Autonome des Transports Parisiens
LandOfFree
Method for exchanging data between an automatic dispenser... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method for exchanging data between an automatic dispenser..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method for exchanging data between an automatic dispenser... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3352135