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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1 – 19 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
The filing date of the above referenced application is April 27, 2023. The Corrected Application Data Sheet filed on May 16, 2023, claims Domestic Benefit/National Stage priority as a Continuation of Application No. 16/882128 with a filing date of May 22, 2020, and Application No. 62/856030 with a filing date of June 1, 2019. Examination will be undertaken in consideration of the priority being June 1, 2019. The Information Disclosure Statements with filing dates of April 27, 2023, April 1, 2024, and May 16, 2025, have been acknowledged.
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 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, in part, a system for transacting a purchase with a device to establish a communication connection, and transact a purchase without assistance from an associated device. The limitations of establishing a communication connection and transacting a purchase are directed to concepts of organizing human activity via the use of generic computer components. Hence, it falls within the “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. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as an accessory device, a memory device, one or more processors and a server to perform operations. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Specification paragraphs 29 and 122 – 142 additionally reference general purpose computing systems and environments, with the recitation of the computer limitations amounting to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements to perform operations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 – 11 are dependent from Claim 1, and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2 – 11 also do not identify improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a), a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), or a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, generic computing components associated with establishing a communication connection and transacting a purchase is not an inventive concept.
Independent method Claim 12 and independent product Claim 16 are directed to an abstract idea as the Federal Circuit has held that an extended claim by claim analysis is not necessary where multiple claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.” In this case, Claims 12 and 16 are substantially similar to system Claim 1.
Claims 13 – 15 and 17 – 19 are dependent from Claims 12 and 16, and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 13 – 15 and 17 – 19 also do not identify improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a), a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), or a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, generic computing components associated with establishing a communication connection and transacting a purchase is not an inventive concept.
Therefore, Claims 1 – 19 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. Claims 1 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Purves et al., U.S. 2019/0244248.
As per Claim 1,
Purves discloses an accessory device comprising:
a wireless network interface;
a touch-sensitive input;
a memory device to store instructions; and
one or more processors to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to enable, via the touch-sensitive input, the accessory device to: (Purves ¶¶ [0056]-[0058], [0063], [0065] and Figs 1A-1,1A-2,1B read on an accessory device, wireless interface, touch-sensitive input, memory and a processor.)
establish a communication connection with a server of a cloud service provider via the wireless network interface; and (Purves ¶¶ [0056]-[0058], [0063]-[0066], [0082] and Figs 1A-1,1A-2,1B read connection of an accessory device to a cloud server.)
transact a digital purchase from the server without assistance from an associated companion device. (Purves ¶¶ [0346], [0347] and Figs 39,40A,40B read on transacting a purchase by the accessory device.)
As per Claim 2,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 1, further comprising one or more instructions that cause the accessory device to:
send a request for a user input to unlock the accessory device; (Purves ¶¶ [0126]-[0128] and Fig 1B read on a user unlocking the accessory device.)
receive a first user input via the touch-sensitive input; and
use the first user input to unlock one or more keys that are securely stored on the accessory device. (Purves ¶¶ [0056]-[0058], [0063], [0065], [0068], [0083], [0126]-[0128] and Figs 1A-1,1A-2,1B read on touch-sensitive user input and access to an accessory device with associated applications.)
As per Claim 3,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 1, wherein the accessory device is a wearable device. (Purves ¶¶ [0056]-[0058], [0063], [0065] and Figs 1A-1,1A-2,1B read on an accessory device as a wearable device.)
As per Claim 4,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 1, wherein the accessory device is paired with the associated companion device prior to establishing the communication connection with the server of the cloud service provider. (Purves ¶¶ [0056]-[0058], [0063], [0065] and Figs 1A-1,1A-2,1B read on an accessory device as a wearable device, paired with a mobile device and subsequent communications.)
As per Claim 5,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 4, wherein, after the accessory device is paired with the companion device, providing, by the accessory device, an aural indication that the accessory device and the companion device have paired. (Purves ¶¶ [0056]-[0058], [0063], [0065], [0068], [0083] and Figs 1A-1,1A-2,1B read on an accessory device as a wearable device, paired with a mobile device and subsequent communications including voice prompts (see Purves ¶¶ [0065], [0068], [0083].))
As per Claim 6,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 5, wherein the aural indication comprises a chime, a ping, a beep, or a tune. (Purves ¶¶ [0056]-[0058], [0063], [0065], [0068], [0083], [0362], [0372] and Figs 1A-1,1A-2,1B read on an accessory device as a wearable device, paired with a mobile device and subsequent communications including voice prompts and ringtones.)
As per Claim 7,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 1, wherein the accessory device comprises a force sensor that detects a force or a pressure of an input on the touch-sensitive input. (Purves ¶¶ [0060], [0064], [0065], [0076] and Figs 1A-1, 1C-3 read on an accessory device with force sensors.)
As per Claim 8,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 1, wherein the accessory device comprises an intensity sensor to detect an intensity of an input on the touch-sensitive input, and wherein inputs of different intensities invoke different operations on the accessory device. (Purves ¶¶ [0060], [0064], [0065], [0076] and Figs 1A-1, 1C-3 read on an accessory device with intensity sensors and identification of different operations. (see Purves ¶¶ [0076].))
As per Claim 9,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 1, further comprising a microphone. (Purves ¶¶ [0056]-[0058], [0061], [0063], [0065], [0277] and Figs 1A-1,1A-2,1B read on an accessory device with a microphone. (see Purves ¶¶ [0061] and [0277].))
As per Claim 10,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 1, wherein the touch-sensitive input comprises a fingerprint input or a touch sensitive button, wherein an input on the fingerprint input or an input on the touch sensitive button, validates an intent of a user to purchase a product. ((Purves ¶¶ [0058], [0077], [0136], [0156], [0170], [0346], [0347] and Figs 1A, 39,40A,40B read on fingerprint input and transacting a purchase by the accessory device.)
As per Claim 11,
Purves discloses the accessory device according to claim 1, wherein one or more keys are stored in a secure memory of a secure processor of the accessory device, and wherein the transaction is performed based at least in part on a signature generated with the one or more keys. (Purves ¶¶ [0346], [0347], [0363], [0365], [0383] and Figs 39,40,41,44 read on transacting a purchase by the accessory device inclusive of cryptographic processing of keys.)
As per Claim 12,
The Examiner notes that Claim 12 reads as follows:
A method executed by one or more processors of an accessory device, the method comprising:
establishing a communication connection with a server of a cloud service provider via a wireless network interface of the accessory device; and
transacting a digital purchase from the server without assistance from an associated
companion device.
Claim 12 is directed to the method which is implied by the system of Claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same rational as Claim 1.
As per Claim 13,
The Examiner notes that Claim 13 reads as follows:
The method according to claim 12, further comprising:
sending a request for a user input to unlock the accessory device;
receiving a first user input via a touch-sensitive input of the accessory device; and
using the first user input to unlock one or more keys that are securely stored on the accessory device.
Claim 13 is directed to the method which is implied by the system of Claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same rational as Claim 2.
As per Claim 14,
The Examiner notes that Claim 14 reads as follows:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the accessory device is a wearable device.
Claim 14 is directed to the method which is implied by the system of Claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same rational as Claim 3.
As per Claim 15,
The Examiner notes that Claim 15 reads as follows:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the accessory device is paired with the companion device prior to establishing the communication connection with the server of the cloud service provider.
Claim 15 is directed to the method which is implied by the system of Claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same rational as Claim 4.
As per Claim 16,
The Examiner notes that Claim 16 reads as follows:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instruction which, when executed by one or more processors of an accessory device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
establishing a communication connection with a server of a cloud service provider via a wireless network interface of the accessory device; and
transacting a digital purchase from the server without assistance from an associated companion device.
Claim 19 is directed to the product which is implied by the system of Claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same rational as Claim 1.
As per Claim 17,
The Examiner notes that Claim 17 reads as follows:
The machine-readable medium according to claim 16, further comprising one or more instructions that cause the accessory device to:
send a request for a user input to unlock the accessory device;
receive a first user input via a touch-sensitive input of the accessory device; and
use the first user input to unlock one or more keys that are securely stored on the accessory device.
Claim 17 is directed to the product which is implied by the system of Claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same rational as Claim 2.
As per Claim 18,
The Examiner notes that Claim 18 reads as follows:
The machine-readable medium according to claim 16, wherein the accessory device is a wearable device.
Claim 18 is directed to the product which is implied by the system of Claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same rational as Claim 3.
As per Claim 19,
The Examiner notes that Claim 19 reads as follows:
The machine-readable medium according to claim 16, wherein the accessory device is paired with the companion device prior to establishing the communication connection with the server of the cloud service provider.
Claim 19 is directed to the product which is implied by the system of Claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same rational as Claim 4.
Conclusion
Art cited but not relied upon pertinent to application disclosure includes Li et al., U.S. 2019/0279637 generally identifying a wearable device, biometrics and authentication; Mehta et al., U.S. 2017/0140146 generally identifying devices, encryption and authentication; Zhang et al., U.S. 2015/0186892 generally identifying user devices and transaction verification; and Castinado et al., U.S. 9,554,274 generally identifying authentication levels associated with a wearable device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Brindley, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday between 6:00 AM and 3:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Behncke, can be reached at (571) 272-8103. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/BENJAMIN S BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 December 2, 2025