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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 07/28/2025. Currently, claims 1-11, 13 and 14 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 11 and 13 have been amended. No newly added claims. Claim 12 has been cancelled.
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 1-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method and apparatuses for selecting an NFC emulation card.
Exemplary claim 6 recites in part,
“sending… third query information based on detecting the NFC radio frequency field… wherein the third query information comprises first identification information and service type information of an emulation card…;
based on receiving the third query information, determining… whether a first emulation card corresponding to the first identification information exists, wherein a type of the first emulation card is different from a type… wherein the first emulation card is configured to determine whether the electronic device supports an emulation card query…;
based on determining that the first emulation card exists, determining… whether a second emulation card corresponding to the service type information exists;
sending… fourth response information based on determining that the second emulation card exists, wherein the fourth response information carries second identification information of the second emulation card;
sending… card selection instruction information based on receiving the fourth response information, wherein the card selection instruction information carries the second identification information; and
sending… the electronic device, card selection response information based on receiving the card selection instruction information;
sending… an instruction for an NFC service based on receiving the card selection response information: and
completing… a service processing procedure… using the second emulation card based on receiving the instruction.”
The claim limitations recite the steps of 1) transmitting data (query information, card selection instruction and service instruction), 2) processing the data based on one or more criteria, 3) selecting a card based on the instructions, and 4) processing a transaction. The claim recites the steps of selecting an appropriate emulation card for processing a transaction. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," (commercial or legal interaction - sales activities or behaviors) as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practices, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of computing devices (NFC card reader, electronic device) for implementing the limitations encompassing the abstract idea. The recited computing devices represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the claim recites the additional element in the form of “detecting an NFC radio frequency field”. Transmitting/receiving information over a network” has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered, both individually and as a whole, claim 6 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to the practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The computing devices recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). “Transmitting/receiving information over a network” has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 6 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 13 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 6, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 14 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2019/0052645 (Sharma et al. – hereinafter Sharma), in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0175910 (Zhao et al. – hereinafter Zhao), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2019/0370778 (Lerch et al. – hereinafter Lerch) and WO 2014/205849 (Wang et al. – hereinafter Wang, See attachment).
Referring to claim 1, Sharma discloses a communications system, comprising a near field communication (NFC) card reader and an electronic device having an NFC function, wherein
the NFC card reader is configured to: [See paragraph 0031]
send third query information based on detecting an NFC radio frequency field of the electronic device, wherein the third query information carries first identification information and service type information of an emulation card supported by the NFC card reader; and [See paragraphs 0075, 0076, 0093, 0105, 0106]
the NFC card reader is further configured to: send card selection instruction information based on receiving the fourth response information, wherein the card selection instruction information carries the second identification information. [See paragraphs 0078-0080, 0107-0109]
the electronic device is further configured to send card selection response information based on receiving the card selection instruction information. [See paragraphs 0083, 0086, 0087]
the NFC card reader is further configured to: send an instruction for an NFC service based on receiving the card selection response information; and [See paragraphs 0111-0117]
the electronic device is further configured to complete a service processing procedure with the NFC card reader using the second emulation card based on receiving the instruction. [See paragraphs 0111-0117]
Sharma does not explicitly disclose:
the electronic device is configured to:
based on receiving the third query information, determine whether a first emulation card corresponding to the first identification information exists, wherein a type of the first emulation card is different from a type of an emulation card corresponding to the service type information, and wherein the first emulation card is configured to determine whether the electronic device supports an emulation card query service and is not used for an NFC transaction;
based on determining that the first emulation card exists, determine whether a second emulation card corresponding to the service type information exists, and based on a determination that two or more emulation cards corresponding to the service type exist, using an emulation card of the two or more emulation cards that has a highest configured priority as the second emulation card; and
send fourth response information based on determining that the second emulation card exists, wherein the fourth response information carries second identification information of the second emulation card.
Zhao teaches a system with the limitation:
the electronic device is configured to: based on receiving the third query information, determine whether a first emulation card corresponding to the first identification information exists, wherein a type of the first emulation card is different from a type of an emulation card corresponding to the service type information, and wherein the first emulation card is configured to determine whether the electronic device supports an emulation card query service and is not used for an NFC transaction. [See paragraphs 0075, 0076, 0081, 0131-0135]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Sharma to have incorporated a payment applet selection feature as in Zhao with the motivation of selecting the appropriate payment applet for processing a transaction. [See Zhao paragraph 0056; Sharma paragraphs 0023-0039]
Lerch teaches a system with the limitation:
the electronic device configured to: based on determining that the first emulation card exists, determine whether a second emulation card corresponding to the service type information exists, and based on a determination that two or more emulation cards corresponding to the service type exist, using an emulation card of the two or more emulation cards that has a highest configured priority as the second emulation card. [See paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0026-0028, 0046, 0047, 0075, 0125-0127 – Different types of card classes may be stored on a secure element. During a transaction, a priority scheme is used to select the appropriate card from a plurality of card within the same card class/type.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system executing the combination of Sharma and Zhao to have incorporated an NFC card priority selection feature as in Lerch with the motivation of processing a contactless transaction between two NFC-enabled devices. [See Lerch paragraphs 0023-0028; Sharma paragraph 0022]
Wang teaches a system with the limitation:
the electronic device is configured to: send fourth response information based on determining that the second emulation card exists, wherein the fourth response information carries second identification information of the second emulation card. [See page 7, paragraph 3-page 8, paragraph 4; page 10, paragraph 6-page 13, paragraph 10]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system executing the combination of Sharma, Zhao and Lerch to have incorporated an NFC card selection feature as in Wang with the motivation of processing a contactless transaction between two NFC-enabled devices. [See Wang page 6, paragraph 10; Sharma paragraph 0022]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Sharma, Zhao, Lerch and Wang discloses the communications system according to claim 1, wherein the first identification information is an application identifier (AID), the third query information is carried on an application protocol data unit (APDU) sending command, and the fourth response information is carried on an APDU response command. [See Sharma paragraphs 0067, 0071, 0072]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Sharma, Zhao, Lerch and Wang discloses the communications system according to claim 2, wherein the service type information is carried on an instruction parameter Pl in the APDU sending command. [See Sharma paragraphs 0070, 0072, 0076, 0077]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Sharma, Zhao, Lerch and Wang discloses the communications system according to claim 3, wherein service type information of the first emulation card is different from service type information of the second emulation card. [See Lerch paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0026-0028, 0046, 0047, 0075, 0125-0127]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Sharma, Zhao, Lerch and Wang discloses the communications system according to claim 3, wherein the electronic device is further configured to present prompt information, wherein the prompt information is used to prompt a user that an NFC transaction succeeds or fails. [See Wang page 7, paragraph 3-page 8, paragraph 4; page 10, paragraph 6-page 13, paragraph 10]
Referring to claims 6-9, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-4, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Sharma, Zhao, Lerch and Wang discloses the NFC-based data transmission method according to claim 6, wherein the sending, by the electronic device, fourth response information in response to determining that the second emulation card exists specifically comprises:
collecting, by the electronic device, biometric feature information of a user; [See Sharma paragraph 0053]
attempting, by the electronic device, to verify the collected biometric feature information; and [See Sharma paragraph 0053]
sending, by the electronic device, the fourth response information in response to verification of the collected biometric feature information. [See Sharma paragraph 0053]
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lerch, and further in view of Zhao.
Referring to claim 11, Wang discloses an electronic device, comprising one or more touchscreens, one or more processors, and one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories store one or more computer programs, the one or more computer programs comprise instructions, and when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, the electronic device is enabled to perform the following steps:
receive third query information, wherein the third query information comprises first identification information and service type information of an emulation card supported by a near field communication (NFC) card reader; [See page 7, paragraph 3-page 8, paragraph 4; page 10, paragraph 6-page 13, paragraph 10]
send fourth response information based on determining that the second emulation card exists, wherein the fourth response information carries second identification information of the second emulation card; [See page 7, paragraph 3-page 8, paragraph 4; page 10, paragraph 6-page 13, paragraph 10]
receive card selection instruction information sent by the NFC card reader, wherein the card selection instruction information carries the second identification information; and [See page 7, paragraph 3-page 8, paragraph 4; page 10, paragraph 6-page 13, paragraph 10]
send card selection response information. [See page 7, paragraph 3-page 8, paragraph 4; page 10, paragraph 6-page 13, paragraph 10]
receive an instruction for a NFC service sent by the NFC card reader: and [See page 7, paragraph 3-page 8, paragraph 4; page 10, paragraph 6-page 13, paragraph 10]
complete a service processing procedure with the NFC card reader using the second emulation card based on receiving the instruction. [See page 7, paragraph 3-page 8, paragraph 4; page 10, paragraph 6-page 13, paragraph 10]
Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
based on determining that the first emulation card exists, determine whether a second emulation card corresponding to the service type information exists, and based on a determination that two or more emulation cards corresponding to the service type exist, using an emulation card of the two or more emulation cards that has a highest configured priority as the second emulation card; and
determine whether a first emulation card corresponding to the first identification information exists, wherein a type of the first emulation card is different from a type of an emulation card corresponding to the service type information, and wherein the first emulation card is configured to determine whether the electronic device supports an emulation card query service and is not used for an NFC transaction.
Lerch teaches a system with the limitation: based on determining that the first emulation card exists, determine whether a second emulation card corresponding to the service type information exists, and based on a determination that two or more emulation cards corresponding to the service type exist, using an emulation card of the two or more emulation cards that has a highest configured priority as the second emulation card. [See paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0026-0028, 0046, 0047, 0075, 0125-0127 – Different types of card classes may be stored on a secure element. During a transaction, a priority scheme is used to select the appropriate card from a plurality of card within the same card class/type.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system executing the method of Wang to have incorporated an NFC card priority selection feature as in Lerch with the motivation of processing a contactless transaction between two NFC-enabled devices. [See Lerch paragraphs 0023-0028]
Zhao teaches a system with the limitation: determine whether a first emulation card corresponding to the first identification information exists, wherein a type of the first emulation card is different from a type of an emulation card corresponding to the service type information, and wherein the first emulation card is configured to determine whether the electronic device supports an emulation card query service and is not used for an NFC transaction. [See paragraphs 0075, 0076, 0081, 0131-0135]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the teaching of the combination of Wang and Lerch to have incorporated a payment applet selection feature as in Zhao with the motivation of selecting the appropriate payment applet for processing a transaction. [See Zhao paragraph 0056]
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Lerch, and further in view of Zhao.
Referring to claim 13, Sharma discloses a near field communication (NFC) wherein the NFC apparatus comprises at least one processor and a memory, and the memory is coupled to the processor, wherein
the memory is configured to store first identification information of a first emulation card and service type information supported by the NFC apparatus; and
the at least one processor is configured to:
based on received fourth response information sent by the electronic device, to send card selection instruction information, wherein the card selection instruction information carries second identification information, and the second identification information is carried in the fourth response information by the electronic device. [See paragraphs 0078-0080, 0107-0109]
send an instruction for a NFC service based on receiving card selection response information sent by the electronic device: and [See paragraphs 0111-0117]
complete a service processing procedure with the electronic device using a second emulation card on the electronic device associated with the second identification information. [See paragraphs 0111-0117]
Sharma does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
wherein the second identification information corresponds to an emulation card having a highest configured priority of two or more emulation cards that exist on the electronic device and that correspond to the service type information; and
send the first identification information and the service type information to an electronic device to enable the electronic device to determine whether a first emulation card exists on the electronic device, wherein a type of the first emulation card is different from a type of an emulation card corresponding to the service type information, and wherein the first emulation card is configured to determine whether the electronic device supports an emulation card query service and is not used for an NFC transaction.
Lerch teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the second identification information corresponds to an emulation card having a highest configured priority of two or more emulation cards that exist on the electronic device and that correspond to the service type information. [See paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0026-0028, 0046, 0047, 0075, 0125-0127 – Different types of card classes may be stored on a secure element. During a transaction, a priority scheme is used to select the appropriate card from a plurality of card within the same card class/type.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system executing the method of Sharma to have incorporated an NFC card priority selection feature as in Lerch with the motivation of processing a contactless transaction between two NFC-enabled devices. [See Lerch paragraphs 0023-0028]
Zhao teaches a system with the limitation: send the first identification information and the service type information to an electronic device to enable the electronic device to determine whether a first emulation card exists on the electronic device, wherein a type of the first emulation card is different from a type of an emulation card corresponding to the service type information, and wherein the first emulation card is configured to determine whether the electronic device supports an emulation card query service and is not used for an NFC transaction. [See paragraphs 0075, 0076, 0081, 0131-0135]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the teachings of the combination of Sharma and Lerch to have incorporated a payment applet selection feature as in Zhao with the motivation of selecting the appropriate payment applet for processing a transaction. [See Zhao paragraph 0056; Sharma paragraphs 0023-0039]
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Sharma, Lerch and Zhao discloses the NFC apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the NFC apparatus is an NFC chip. [See Sharma paragraph 0127]
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, 13 and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite the steps of selecting an appropriate emulation card for processing a transaction based on one or more rules/criteria. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," (commercial or legal interaction - sales activities) as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Applicant’s filed specification teaches that “[a]ccording to the foregoing technical solution, when the electronic device, for example, a mobile phone, is close to the NFC card reader to perform an NFC payment, the mobile phone may automatically select a corresponding emulation card. This avoids a technical issue in the current technology that an NFC payment fails when a service type of a default emulation card is inconsistent with a service type of the emulation card supported by the NFC card reader. In addition, in the foregoing technical solution, cumbersome operations of displaying a user interface on the electronic device and then manually switching an emulation card by the user do not need to be performed, thereby improving NFC communication efficiency and improving user experience. In addition, in the foregoing embodiment, an interaction process between the electronic device and the NFC card reader may not require any operation of the user, and does not need to be presented to the user through the user interface. Therefore, an imperceptible payment can be implemented.” See paragraph 0010.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality includes: “Mere automation of manual processes”. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). In the present case, the claims provide for an automated process (using an electronic device with instructions) of selecting a card for processing an NFC transaction based on one or more criteria.
In addition, the recited computing devices (NFC card reader, electronic device) amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claims 1-11, 13 and 14 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejection(s)
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Zhao, and further in view of Lerch and Wang; claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lerch and further in view of Zhao; and claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Lerch and further in view of Zhao have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that some of Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added amendments and have been addressed in the current rejection.
The system of Zhao teaches that, “[t]he obtaining unit 60 may further obtain, from a near field communication execution environment NFCEE in which the first application is located, information indicating the RF technology supported by the first application… The second instruction message is used to instruct the NFC chip to determine the at least one to-be-used RF technology in the RF technology supported by the first application.”
Paragraph 0132 teaches that, “[o]ptionally, before the determining unit 61 determines the at least one to-be-used RF technology in the RF technology supported by the first application, the determining unit 61 is further configured to determine whether instruction information allows the NFC chip to determine the at least one to-be-used RF technology in the RF technology supported by the first application. The instruction information is a parameter preconfigured in the NFC chip. The instruction information indicates whether the NFC chip is allowed to determine the at least one to-be-used RF technology in the RF technology supported by the first application.”
From the above paragraphs, the first instruction is sent to determine whether an electronic device is allowed to be used to determine at least one or more RF technology supported by an application of the device. The first instruction information is different from a second instruction message and it is not used in selecting the appropriate application for NFC transaction. Thus, the system of Zhao discloses the recited limitation.
Accordingly, the combination of Sharma, Zhao, Lerch and Wang teaches or suggests the limitations of the claimed invention(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights