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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to remarks filed 04/06/2026.
Claims 2 and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-11, 13, 15 & 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 3-12 & 15-20 being dependent on either of independent claims 1 or 13.
Claims 1, 3-13, & 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-13, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Amanda Sneider et al. (WO 2022/094351 A1, herein Sneider).
Applicant argues that Stone teaches only a singular payment button rather than a plurality of system-level settings tiles. Examiner notes that the rejection does not rely solely on Stone for teaching the plurality. Adler teaches multiple selectable data items/cards (see e.g., Adler ¶¶ [34 & 39]), and the combination with Stone suggests presenting such selectable options via a user interface. Further, Sneider teaches presentation of multiple selectable elements (see e.g., Sneider ¶¶ [24-25, 52, 57, 63 & 109 (Clause 1 & 11)]) via a system-level interface. Therefore, the combined teachings render this limitation obvious.
Applicant further argues that the claimed system-level settings tiles are not provided by any foreground application. Examiner agrees that Adler and Stone do not explicitly teach this limitation. However, Sneider teaches user interface elements (e.g., control panel, GUI elements) that are generated and controlled independently of a merchant or application interface and are overlaid or interact with application content (Sneider ¶¶ [24-25, 29, & 52-57]). Thus, the interface elements are generated independently of any merchant or foreground application and are not provided by the foreground application itself, but rather by system-level components. Although Sneider describes the interface in the context of an application, the interface operates independently of any merchant or foreground application and controls system-level payment functionality across applications, thereby constituting system-level functionality rather than application-specific UI. Therefore, the combination teachings render this limitation obvious.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary Adler et al. (US 2021/0241255 A1, herein Adler) in view of Carl Stone (US 2010/0332351 A1, herein Stone) and in further view Sneider.
As per claim 1, Adler teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
executing a foreground application operating on a background operating system (OS) of the mobile computing device, the background OS performing system-level data processing securely from the foreground application (Adler ¶¶ [73-74]); and
securely transferring, by the mobile computing device, utilizing the background OS, the set of data to the foreground application, so as to allow the foreground application to utilize the set of data without navigating away from the foreground application (Adler ¶¶ [46, 70 & 75]).
Adler does not explicitly teach displaying a persistent user-selectable interface element while remaining on the same screen; Stone, however, teaches:
wherein the background OS comprises a plurality of system-level settings tiles each comprising at least one graphical user interface (GUI) element, […] (Stone ¶¶ [22, 25-26, 29-30 & 36]);
displaying by the mobile computing device, the plurality of system-level settings tiles from the background OS with a display of the foreground application (Stone ¶¶ [8, 19, 21, 26, 29 & 43]);
in response a GUI element of one of the plurality of system-level settings tiles being selected, securely obtaining, by the mobile device, utilizing the background OS a set of data associated with the one of the plurality of system-level settings tiles and stored in the mobile computing device, without navigating away from the foreground application (Stone ¶¶ [8, 21-23, 26 & 37]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Adler to incorporate the teachings of Stone to allow user interaction with payment-related functionality without navigating away form a foreground application. Adler teaches accessing and utilizing transaction card information in response to user input; however, Adler does not expressly teach presenting a user-selectable interface element that remains visible concurrently with the foreground application. Stone teaches a device-installed payment button that is displayed on the same screen as a merchant or application page and remains present throughout the transaction process, thereby allowing payment-related actions to be initiated without transitioning to a separate page or application (see Stone ¶¶ [8, 21 & 29]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Stone’s same-screen, device-level UI approach with Adler’s card-information retrieval techniques to improve usability, reduce user navigation steps, and maintain application context during secure payment operations. Such a combination merely involves the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions and yields the expected benefit of enabling secure access to transaction data while the foreground application remains displayed.
Stone further teaches that the interface element (e.g., payment button) is displayed on the same screen as a merchant or application page and remains present throughout the transaction process, thereby enabling user interaction without transitioning away from the foreground application (Stone ¶¶ [8, 21 & 29]).
However, Adler and Stone do not explicitly teach: [the plurality of system-level settings tiles not being provided by any foreground application operating on the background OS]
Sneider further teaches displaying a user interface element (e.g., floating widget including token information) that is provisioned independently of merchant application and displayed over the merchant interface, thereby [not being provided by the foreground application operating on the background OS] (Sneider ¶¶ [24, 29 & 52-54] such that the interface element is not provided by the foreground (merchant) application itself but is generated by a separate application/component and overlaid on the merchant interface; thus, the GUI elements are not provided by the foreground application itself, but are provided by a separate application or system component independent of the application application.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Adler and Stone in view of Sneider to implement the user-selectable interface elements as system-level functionality rather than application-specific functionality. Such modification would have been motivated to improve security by isolating sensitive operations from foreground application, enable persistent access across multiple application, reduce reliance on individual application implementations, reduce app switching, improve user experience during checkout, allow interaction without leaving merchant app and to enable user interaction with payment functionality without leaving the merchant application; which are well-known design considerations in mobile computing systems.
As per claim 13, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 1 above and therefore rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 2, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach the method of claim 1, Adler further teaches: wherein the system-level settings tile comprises a plurality of tiles, and the at least one system-level GUI element is configured as a tile of the plurality of tiles (Adler ¶¶ [34-36, 38-39, 46 & 74]).
As per claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 2 above and therefore rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 3, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach the method of claim 1, Adler further teaches: wherein the plurality of system-level settings tile further comprises a list of cards available to the user, and at least one GUI feature enabling the user to select a desired card from the list (Adler ¶¶ [34, 38-39 & 74]).
As per claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 3 above and therefore rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 4, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach method of claim 1, Adler further teaches: wherein the displayed system-level settings tile comprises a virtual keyboard enabling population of a text entry field, by the user using the virtual keyboard, wherein the text entry field is configured to receive one or more of login information, authentication information, payment information, card information, and/or other information (Adler ¶¶ [45, 54, 74-75 & 86]).
As per claim 5, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach method of claim 4, Adler further teaches: wherein the virtual keyboard is configured to obtain the card information automatically upon selection of a first GUI element that is displayed on the virtual keyboard and programmed to obtain or provide the card information for a selected card (Adler ¶¶ [26, 34, 39-41, 60 & 75]).
As per claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 5 above and therefore rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 6, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach the method of claim 1, Adler further teaches: wherein the displayed plurality of system-level settings tile comprises a virtual keyboard enabling population of an information entry field, wherein the information entry field is configured to receive one or more of login information, authentication information, payment information, card information, and/or other information (Adler ¶¶ [58-60 & 74]).
As per claim 7, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach the method of claim 1, Adler further teaches: wherein the set of data is card information pertaining to a payment token, and a payment transacted via the foreground application is a token-based payment transaction (Adler ¶¶ [32, 34, 40, 46, 48, 54-56, 60 & 75]).
As per claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 7 above and therefore rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 8, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach the method of claim 7, Adler further teaches: wherein the payment token comprises information corresponding to one or more of: a card number, a card verification value (CVV), or other security code, a card expiration date, an address, a card holder name, an indicator of whether the payment token is for a single use or multiple use, an indicator of a number of use of the payment token, an expiration time of the payment token, a spending limit of the payment token, an exclusion list of the payment token, an inclusive list of the payment token, and a geolimit of the payment token (Adler ¶¶ [34, 40, 46, 54-55, 60, 64, 68 & 75]).
As per claim 18, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 8 above and therefore rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 9, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach the method of claim 1, Adler further teaches: further comprising retrieving or copying card information via a clipboard that stores the set of data (Adler ¶¶ [27, 49-50 & 75]).
As per claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 9 above and therefore rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 10, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach the method of claim 1, Adler further teaches: wherein the at least one system-level GUI element of each of the plurality of system-level settings tile is configured to acquire the set of data by providing input fields into which a user enters card information into the set of data (Adler Fig. 7B at 714 and ¶¶ [34-35 & 74]).
As per claim 20, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 10 above and therefore rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 11, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach the method of claim 1, Adler further teaches: wherein the system-level at least one GUI element of each of the plurality of system-level settings tile is configured by receiving, from another device or computer, information regarding a new card for use by the user (Adler ¶¶ [26, 34, 36, 38 & 63]).
As per claim 12, Adler, Stone and Sneider teach the method of claim 1, Adler further teaches: wherein the activity executing the foreground application comprises a purchase transaction (Adler ¶¶ [46-47, 70 & 74]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights