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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 15/851,326 entitled "SECURE END-TO-END PERSONALIZATION OF SMART CARDS" with amendment filed on October 14, 2025, with claims 1-6, 8-22 and 24-26 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, 20, 22, and 24 have been amended.
Claim 23 was previously cancelled. Claim 7 is newly cancelled.
Claims 1-22 and 24-26 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The response filed October 14, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-22 and 24-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 12, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 17, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following claim limitations are interpreted by the Examiner as follows:
Claims 1, 11, 20, and 22: “without requiring a concurrent [secured] connection to a card issuance device”.
Claim 24: “without requiring a concurrent connection to the personalization system”.
are described as being supported in the specification at [0009] and [0024]. The Remarks dated 4/30/2021 explain “that the personalization process does not require a connection to the card issuance device to create a virtual smart card in accordance with the present invention, and that the virtual smart card may be later conveyed to the card issuance device so the card issuance device may use the information in the virtual smart card for personalizing a real smart card.”
Examiner interprets this as the data personalization software for either the “real” or “virtual” card exists separate and apart from the printer (card issuance device);
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 1-6, 8-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-6, 8-22 and 24-26 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A method comprising: generating, at a personalization system, a customized dataset including personalization data of a particular user …onto a smart card, the customized dataset being generated based on an operating system of the smart card by performing a personalization process to generate a virtual smart card formatted according to the operating system and specific to an intended recipient of the smart card without requiring a concurrent connection …;
… at least a portion of the customized dataset including the virtual smart card, at the personalization system, using an encryption key that is specific to the card issuance device that is separate from the personalization system, the encryption key being different from any encryption key used to secure the customized dataset when stored on the smart card;
and … the virtual smart card, …, …alongside a plurality of different encrypted virtual smart cards personalized for a plurality of different intended recipients …,
wherein generating the customized dataset is completed prior to …any portion of the customized dataset….”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for generating, at a personalization system, a customized dataset and to generate a virtual smart card formatted recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[a card issuance device][to the card issuance device][ for installation]:
merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[encrypting] [encrypted with the encryption key] [transmitting]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads, [0033] “rather than use of a card issuance device such as printers106, 107, a software-based card issuance device could be used to issue a smart card to a user. As seen in Fig. 1, a mobile device, such as a smartphone112 having mobile wallet software installed thereon, can act as a card issuance device by including card issuance software capable of generating a real personalized software-implemented smart card”. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the encryption step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The Specification reads, [0073] “An Application Load Certificate (ALC)632 can be used as well, and corresponds to a certified copy of the public key of an application provider, as well as an application header. The ALC634 can be signed using a MULTOS card authority's private key certifying key (KCK), allowing any MULTOS card that are appropriately implemented to verify the authenticity of the certificate.” For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 2 and 3:
“card issuance device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 4: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 5:
“card issuance device”, “mobile device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“card printer associated with a physical smart card”: merely applying printing technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 6:
“encrypting”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
Claim 8:
“card issuance device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“decrypting”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
Claim 9:
“card issuance device via the Internet”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 10:
“encrypted”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
Claim 26:
“a computing device”, “card issuance device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the encryption step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 11 recites:
“A secure end-to-end smart card personalization system comprising: a personalization system comprising …cause the personalization system to:
generate a customized dataset including personalization data …onto a smart card, the customized dataset being generated based on an operating system of the smart card by performing a personalization process to generate a virtual smart card formatted according to the operating system and specific to an intended recipient of the smart card without requiring a concurrent connection to a card issuance device;
… at least a portion of the customized dataset including the virtual smart card, at a personalization system, using an encryption key that is specific to a card issuance device that is separate from the personalization system, the encryption key being different from any encryption key used to secure the customized dataset when stored on the smart card; and
… alongside a plurality of different …virtual smart cards personalized for a plurality of different intended recipients …,
wherein generating the customized dataset is completed prior to …any portion of the customized dataset…..”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for generating, at a personalization system, a customized dataset and to generate a virtual smart card formatted recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[a programmable circuit communicatively connected to a memory storing computer executable instructions which, when executed] [to the card issuance device][ for installation]:
merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[encrypted with the encryption key][encrypted][transmitting]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the encrypted step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 12 and 14:
(none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 15:
“card issuance device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 16:
“card issuance device”, “Internet”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 17:
“card issuance device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“smart card printer”: merely applying printing technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 18:
“card issuance device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 19:
“card issuance device”, “Internet”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the encryption step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 20 recites:
“A secure end-to-end smart card personalization system comprising:
a personalization system communicatively connected…, the personalization system configured to:
generate a personalized virtual smart card including personalization data for…, the customized dataset being generated based on an operating system of the real smart card by performing a personalization process using a virtual smart card formatted according to the operating system and specific to an intended recipient of the smart card without requiring a concurrent connection …;
…at least a portion of the customized dataset including the virtual smart card, at a personalization system, using a public key of a public-private key pair unique to a card issuance device and different from a public key of the real smart card; and
…the virtual smart card, …with the public key, …alongside a plurality of different … virtual smart cards personalized for a plurality of different intended recipients encrypted using the encryption key, wherein generating the customized dataset is completed prior to any portion of the customized dataset being….”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for generating, at a personalization system, a customized dataset and to generate a virtual smart card formatted recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[to a card issuance device][to the card issuance device]:
merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[encrypt ][encrypted ][transmit ][transmitted to the card issuance device]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the encryption steps that were considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 21:
“card issuance device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“encrypted”, “decrypted”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the encryption step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 22 recites:
“A method of personalizing a smart card, the method comprising:
receiving at a personalization system an operating system type of a smart card to be personalized;
generating a customized dataset including personalization data for …the smart card to be personalized by performing a personalization process using a virtual smart card formatted according to the operating system and specific to an intended recipient of the smart card without requiring a concurrent secured connection to the card issuance device;
receiving an encryption key …and …at least a portion of the customized dataset including the virtual smart card prior to …the customized dataset to the card issuance device, at the personalization system, the encryption key being different from any encryption key used to secure the customized dataset when stored on the smart card; and
after the customized dataset is generated in its entirety, … the virtual smart card, …with the public key, …alongside a plurality of different …virtual smart cards personalized for a plurality of different intended recipients … using the encryption key.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for generating, at a personalization system, a customized dataset and to generate a virtual smart card formatted recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[specific to the card issuance device] [ to the card issuance device] [installation onto]:
merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[encrypting][encrypted] [transmitting]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 22 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the encrypted step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 24 recites:
“A method of personalizing a smart card, the method comprising:
in a first communication session…to a personalization system an operating system type of a smart card to be personalized;
in a second communication session different from the first communication session, receiving, …a customized dataset including personalization data … onto the smart card to be personalized, the customized dataset including a personalized virtual smart card formatted according to the operating system and specific to an intended recipient of the smart card, wherein the customized dataset is received alongside a plurality of virtual smart cards specific to other intended recipients, and wherein the personalized virtual smart card and the plurality of virtual smart cards …with an encryption key specific …and
personalizing a real smart card using the customized dataset … without requiring a concurrent connection to the personalization system,
wherein generating the customized dataset is completed before any portion of the customized dataset is received…”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for generating, at a personalization system, a customized dataset and to generate a virtual smart card formatted recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[at a card issuance device] [for installation][to the card issuance device][at the card issuance device]:
merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
[transmitting from a card issuance device] [are each encrypted]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 24 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the encryption steps that were considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background does not provide any indication that the network appliance is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component that is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
For causing the transmission, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 25:
“card issuance device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“decrypting”: insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
For the encryption step that was considered extra-solution activity and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, the background doe