DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/11/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to amendment and response filed on 9/11/25 and IDS filed on 3/3/25 and 9/11/25. Claims 1 and 9 were amended. Claim 10 was cancelled. Claims 17-18 are new. Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims are not identical to the parent application.
The Examiner disagrees.
The amended claims are obvious over the parent application in view of US 20190172037 A1 (O'Donoghue), US 20140138435 A1 (Khalid) and US 20190197533 A1 (Edwards).
As such, the rejection is maintained.
101: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of the claims were amended substantively. Per example, amended claim 1 recites “the common background service of the operating system is EMV certified” which is an additional element that necessitates reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
103: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the recited art in the prior rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of new claims and amendments that are substantive. Per example, the amended claim 1 recites “the common background service of the operating system is EMV certified” which necessitates an updated search and a reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 3/3/25 and 9/11/25. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 9 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of co-pending application no. 17/340,362 (Arora). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of the patents anticipate the claim limitations of the current application, see MPEP 1504.06(II).
Current Application
18/104,703
Co-pending application
17/340,362
Claims 1, 9
Claims 1, 12
receive a first information from the at least one application,
retrieve recipient information from the NFC transaction request,
retrieve second information stored in the electronic device or received via a transceiver of the electronic device,
retrieve information indicative of one or more card details associated with an NFC-enabled card,
provide the first information and the second information to one or more external servers for processing,
provide the recipient information and the one or more card details from the NFC-enabled electronic device to a transaction server,
provide a notification received from the one or more external servers on a display based on the processing
provide a transaction status notification received from at least one of the transaction server, a transaction processor, an acquirer bank, or an issuer bank for display to a user, via a user interface, wherein the transaction status notification indicates a success or a failure of the NFC transaction
Additionally, Arora does not explicitly teach, “the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near-Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications” limitations of claims 1 and 9. However, US 20190172037 A1 (O'Donoghue) teaches “the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near-Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications”, see O’Donoghue FIG. 1, items 104a, 104b, 104c, ¶ 26-28, 43. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the NFC card based transaction features of Arora with client based NFC background service features of O’Donoghue because providing a client based NFC background service improves NFC transaction platform integration by hosting common communication service between parties to the NFC transaction.
Additionally, Arora does not teach “the common background service of the operating system is EMV certified” limitation of claim 1. However, US 20140138435 A1 (Khalid) teaches the common background service of the operating system is EMV certified (para. 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NFC card based transaction features of Arora with the notification display of Khalid because providing payment status notification improve client payment processing by informing the party to the transaction in relation to the success or failure associated with the payment process.
Additionally, Arora does not teach “the plurality of applications run on the electronic device, each of the applications configured to transmit a request to the background service” limitation of claim 9. However, US 20190197533 A1 (Edwards) teaches “the plurality of applications run on the electronic device, each of the applications configured to transmit a request to the background service”, see Edwards FIG. 8, items 702, 704, ¶ 67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the NFC card based transaction features of Arora with client based payment service of Edwards because providing a client based NFC background service improves NFC transaction platform integration by hosting common communication service between parties to the NFC transaction.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-24 of Arora recite limitations that are essentially same as the limitations of the dependent claims 2-8 and 11-18 of the current application. As such, Arora teaches the dependent claims 2-8 and 11-18 of the current application.
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 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to an apparatus and claims 9, 11-18 are directed to a process.
When analyzed under prong one of step 2A, see MPEP 2106.04(a), claim 9 recites transferring information and providing an associated notification which is a form of organizing human activity (e.g. commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) and an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Specifically, the claim recites:
… facilitating a card-present … transaction …,
receive a first information …;
retrieve second information …;
provide the first information and the second information …;
provide a notification received …;
wherein:
…;
…
When analyzed under prong 2 of step 2A, see MPEP 2106.04(d), claim 9 includes additional elements. The additional elements are:
“on a customer Near-Field Communication (NFC)-enabled client electronic device capable of […] NFC […] for a plurality of applications provided in the customer NFC-enabled device and comprising a memory, a processor, and a storage unit comprising a common background Near-Field Communication service for the plurality of applications. executing, by the processor, the common background Near-Field Communication service in response to a request from at least one application operating on the electronic device, causing the common background Near-Field Communication service to”,
“[…], from the at least one application”,
“[…] stored in the electronic device or received via a transceiver of the electronic device”,
“[provide …] to one or more external servers for processing”,
“[provide …] from the one or more external servers on a display based on the processing”,
“the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near- Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications”,
“the plurality of applications run on the electronic device and are configured to transmit requests to the common background Near-Field Communication service”.
The additional elements represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “on a customer Near-Field Communication (NFC)-enabled client electronic device capable of […] NFC […] for a plurality of applications provided in the customer NFC-enabled device and comprising a memory, a processor, and a storage unit comprising a common background Near-Field Communication service for the plurality of applications. executing, by the processor, the common background Near-Field Communication service in response to a request from at least one application operating on the electronic device, causing the common background Near-Field Communication service to”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to “[provide …] to one or more external servers for processing”, the claim lacks technological details on what “[provide …] to one or more external servers for processing” comprises, and as a result is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
With respect to “[provide …] from the one or more external servers on a display based on the processing”, the claim lacks technological details on what “[provide …] to one or more external servers for processing” comprises, and as a result is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Furthermore, it is no more than displaying information and it has been held that using a computer to perform an economic or other task does not provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
With respect to “the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near- Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to “the plurality of applications run on the electronic device and are configured to transmit requests to the common background Near-Field Communication service”, this is no more than transmitting information such as the requests and it has been held that using a computer to perform an economic or other task does not provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Additionally, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
When analyzed under step 2B, see MPEP 2106.05, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
As to claim 1, the claim also recites the abstract idea of transferring information and providing an associated notification. The claim recites the additional elements of:
a “customer Near-Field Communication (NFC)- enabled client electronic device capable of […] NFC […] for a plurality of applications provided in the customer NFC-enabled device, the device comprising”,
“a memory”,
“a processor”,
“a storage unit comprising a common background Near-Field Communication service for the plurality of applications”,
“wherein the processor is communicatively coupled to the memory, the memory storing a set of instructions to execute a common background Near-Field Communication service of an operating system, wherein upon execution of the stored instructions, the processor in response to a request from at least one application operating on the electronic device, causes the common background Near-Field Communication service to”,
“[…], from the at least one application”,
“[…] stored in the electronic device or received via a transceiver of the electronic device”,
“[provide …] to one or more external servers for processing”,
“[provide …] from the one or more external servers on a display based on the processing”,
“the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near- Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications”,
“the plurality of applications run on the electronic device and are configured to transmit requests to the common background Near-Field Communication service”.
The additional elements represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “customer Near-Field Communication (NFC)- enabled client electronic device capable of […] NFC […] for a plurality of applications provided in the customer NFC-enabled device, the device comprising”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to “the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near- Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to “[provide …] to one or more external servers for processing”, the claim lacks technological details on what “[provide …] to one or more external servers for processing” comprises, and as a result is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
With respect to “[provide …] from the one or more external servers on a display based on the processing”, the claim lacks technological details on what “[provide …] to one or more external servers for processing” comprises, and as a result is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Furthermore, it is no more than displaying information and it has been held that using a computer to perform an economic or other task does not provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
With respect to “the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near- Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to “the plurality of applications run on the electronic device and are configured to transmit requests to the common background Near-Field Communication service”, this is no more than transmitting information such as the requests and it has been held that using a computer to perform an economic or other task does not provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Additionally, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
When analyzed under step 2B, see MPEP 2106.05, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Hence, claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites additional elements.
The additional elements of “a plurality of applications run on the electronic device, each of the applications configured to transmit a request to the background service” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “a plurality of applications run on the electronic device, each of the applications configured to transmit a request to the background service”, this is no more than transmitting information such as the request and it has been held that using a computer to perform an economic or other task does not provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Additionally, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 3 and 11 recite additional elements.
The additional elements of “the at least one application is communicatively coupled to an application operating on an external device” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 4 and 12 recite “wherein […] receive the first information […]”, and therefore further describe transferring information and providing an associated notification.
The additional elements of “the background service is configured to […] from a plurality of applications” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite “wherein the request […] is received in response to […]”, and therefore further describe transferring information and providing an associated notification.
The additional elements of “[…] from the at least one application […] a user action in the at least one application” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 6 and 14 recite “wherein the notification is provided on […]”, and therefore further describe transferring information and providing an associated notification.
The additional elements of “a user interface of the electronic device or the at least one application” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 7 and 15 recite “wherein […] receives the first information […]”, and therefore further describe transferring information and providing an associated notification.
The additional elements of “the background service [receives …] from the at least one application via one or more service call, wherein the one or more service calls include local notifications, local asynchronous messaging objects, remote procedure calls (RPCs), operating system calls, integration capable libraries, calls made using software development kits (SDKs), remote push notifications, and scheduled local notifications” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “the background service [receives …] from the at least one application via one or more service call, wherein the one or more service calls include local notifications, local asynchronous messaging objects, remote procedure calls (RPCs), operating system calls, integration capable libraries, calls made using software development kits (SDKs), remote push notifications, and scheduled local notifications”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claim 8 recites additional elements.
The additional elements of “the background service is without a user interface” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “the background service is without a user interface”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claim 16 recites additional elements.
The additional elements of “the common background Near-Field Communication service is without a user interface” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “the common background Near-Field Communication service is without a user interface”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claim 17 recites additional elements.
The additional elements of “the common background Near-Field Communication service of the operating system is EMV certified” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “the common background Near-Field Communication service of the operating system is EMV certified”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claim 18 recites additional elements.
The additional elements of “a module of the common background Near-Field Communication service of the operating system is EMV certified” represent use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or do no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and therefore, do not integrate transferring information and providing an associated notification into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
With respect to “a module of the common background Near-Field Communication service of the operating system is EMV certified”, it merely describes automation or implementation of the abstract idea and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a & f)). Furthermore, it does no more than provide a particular technological environment or field of use and, therefore, is not sufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, itself because the additional elements do no more than automate or implement transferring information and providing an associated notification and do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or related technical field, see MPEP 2106.05(a).
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190197533 A1 (Edwards) in view of US 20140138435 A1 (Khalid) in further view of US 20190172037 A1 (O'Donoghue).
As to claim 1,
Edwards teaches,
a memory (FIG. 6, item 48, ¶ 35),
a processor (FIG. 6, item 52, ¶ 35),
the processor is communicatively coupled to the memory (FIG. 6, items 48, 52, ¶ 35-36),
receive first information from the at least one application (FIG. 8, item 702, 704, ¶ 65 “transaction data exchange”, FIG. 12A, ¶ 62 “merchantName”),
retrieve second information stored in the electronic device or received via a transceiver of the electronic device (¶ 70 “a payment card account number”),
provide the first information and the second information to one or more external servers for processing (FIG. 8, items 704, 708, ¶ 67 “transmit the /postTransaction command after gathering certain requisite transaction data”).
Edwards does not explicitly teach, however, Khalid teaches,
a customer Near-Field Communication (NFC)-enabled client electronic device capable of facilitating a card-present NFC transaction for a plurality of applications provided in the customer NFC-enabled device, the device comprising (FIG. 1, item 13, 11, 136, ¶ 38),
provide a notification received from the one or more external servers on a display based on the processing (¶ 81 “The payment transaction is completed at step S45. Via the device user interface, the displayed payment area on the application page will update with confirmation details”),
the common background service of the operating system is EMV certified (para. 45)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine client based payment service of Edwards with the notification display of Khalid because providing payment status notification improve client payment processing by informing the party to the transaction in relation to the success or failure associated with the payment process.
combination of Edwards and Khalid do not explicitly teach,
a storage unit comprising a common background Near-Field Communication service for the plurality of applications,
the memory storing a set of instructions to execute a common background Near-Field Communication service of an operating system, wherein upon execution of the stored instructions, the processor in response to a request from at least one application operating on the electronic device, causes the common background Near-Field Communication service to,
the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near-Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications.
however, O’Donoghue teaches,
a storage unit (FIG. 1, item 102, ¶ 24) comprising a common background Near-Field Communication service (FIG. 1, item 104c, ¶ 27) for the plurality of applications (FIG. 2, items 104a, 104b ¶ 25),
the memory storing a set of instructions to execute a common background Near-Field Communication service of an operating system, wherein upon execution of the stored instructions, the processor in response to a request from at least one application operating on the electronic device, causes the common background Near-Field Communication service to (¶ 24, 25, 27),
the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near-Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications (FIG. 1, items 104a, 104b, 104c, ¶ 26-28, 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine client based NFC background service features of O’Donoghue in the NFC card based transaction features of Khalid in Edwards because providing a client based NFC background service improves NFC transaction platform integration by hosting common communication service between parties to the NFC transaction.
As to claim 9,
Edwards teaches,
a memory (FIG. 6, item 48, ¶ 35),
a processor (FIG. 6, item 52, ¶ 35),
receive a first information from the at least one application (FIG. 8, item 702, 704, ¶ 65, FIG. 12A, ¶ 62),
retrieve second information stored in the electronic device or received via a transceiver of the electronic device (¶ 70),
provide the first information and the second information to one or more external servers for processing FIG. 8, items 704, 708, ¶ 67,
the plurality of applications run on the electronic device, each of the applications configured to transmit a request to the background service (FIG. 8, items 702, 704, ¶ 67 (“postTransaction”).
Edwards does not explicitly teach, however, Khalid teaches,
a customer Near-Field Communication (NFC)-enabled client electronic device capable of facilitating a card-present NFC transaction for a plurality of applications provided in the customer NFC-enabled device and comprising (FIG. 1, item 13, 11, 136, ¶ 38),
provide a notification received from the one or more external servers on a display based on the processing (¶ 81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine client based payment service of Edwards with the notification display of Khalid because providing payment status notification improve client payment processing by informing the party to the transaction in relation to the success or failure associated with the payment process.
combination of Edwards and Khalid do not explicitly teach, however, O’Donoghue teaches,
a storage unit comprising a common background Near- Field Communication service for the plurality of applications executing, by the processor, the common background Near-Field Communication service in response to a request from at least one application operating on the electronic device, causing the common background Near- Field Communication service to (FIG. 2, items 104a, 104b ¶ 24, 25, 27),
the common background Near-Field Communication service runs as a background process, any of the plurality of applications can communicate with the common background Near-Field Communication service via a local messaging object, and the plurality of the applications leverage Near-Field Communication transactions facilitated by the common background Near-Field Communication service, which manages the Near-Field Communication transactions for the plurality of the applications (FIG. 1, items 104a, 104b, 104c, ¶ 26-28, 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine client based NFC background service features of O’Donoghue in the NFC card based transaction features of Khalid in Edwards because providing a client based NFC background service improves NFC transaction platform integration by hosting common communication service between parties to the NFC transaction.
As to claim 2, combination of Edwards and Khalid teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Edwards also teaches,
a plurality of applications run on the electronic device, each of the applications configured to transmit a request to the background service (FIG. 8, items 702, 704, ¶ 67 (“postTransaction”).
As to claims 3 and 11, combination of Edwards, Khalid and O’Donoghue teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Edwards also teaches,
the at least one application is communicatively coupled to an application operating on an external device (FIG. 8, items 702, 708, ¶ 67 “transmitted”).
As to claims 4 and 12, combination of Edwards, Khalid and O’Donoghue teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
the background service is configured to receive the first information from a plurality of applications (FIG. 8, items 702, 704, ¶ 65 (“transaction data exchanged”).
As to claims 5 and 13, combination of Edwards, Khalid and O’Donoghue teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
the request from the at least one application is received in response to a user action in the at least one application (¶ 52 “a user may wish to test …”).
As to claims 6 and 14, combination of Edwards, Khalid and O’Donoghue teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Edwards does not explicitly teach, however, Khalid teaches,
the notification is provided on a user interface of the electronic device or the at least one application (¶ 81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine client based payment service of Edwards with the notification display of Khalid with client based NFC background service features of O’Donoghue because providing payment status notification improve client payment processing by informing the party to the transaction in relation to the success or failure associated with the payment process..
As to claims 7 and 15, combination of Edwards, Khalid and O’Donoghue teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Edwards does not explicitly teach, however, Khalid teaches,
the background service receives the first information from the at least one application via one or more service call, wherein the one or more service calls include local notifications, local asynchronous messaging objects, remote procedure calls (RPCs), operating system calls, integration capable libraries, calls made using software development kits (SDKs), remote push notifications, and scheduled local notifications (¶ 25, 28, 42, 59, 92).
As to claims 8 and 16, combination of Edwards, Khalid and O’Donoghue teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Edwards also teaches,
the background service is without a user interface (FIG. 7, item 704, ¶ 41 “the mobile application API 704”).
As to claim 17, combination of Edwards, Khalid and O’Donoghue teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Edwards does not teach,
the common background Near-Field Communication service of the operating system is EMV certified.
however, Khalid teaches,
the common background Near-Field Communication service of the operating system is EMV certified (para. 47, 57, 74, 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine client based payment service of Edwards with the notification display of Khalid with client based NFC background service features of O’Donoghue because providing payment status notification improve client payment processing by informing the party to the transaction in relation to the success or failure associated with the payment process.
As to claim 18, combination of Edwards, Khalid and O’Donoghue teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Edwards does not teach,
a module of the common background Near-Field Communication service of the operating system is EMV certified.
however, Khalid teaches,
a module of the common background Near-Field Communication service of the operating system is EMV certified (para. 47, 57, 74, 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine client based payment service of Edwards with the notification display of Khalid with client based NFC background service features of O’Donoghue because providing payment status notification improve client payment processing by informing the party to the transaction in relation to the success or failure associated with the payment process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be r