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 .
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 9/30/2025. Claims 1-11, 15-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 1-20 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(s) 1 is drawn to apparatus, claim 15 is drawn to a method, and claim(s) 16 is to computer program product, which are all statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite receiving data, analyzing data, verifying applications, and notifying them. Which are all data manipulation and communication tasks performed by conventional component. Which is similar to a method of organizing human activity and manipulation information, both of which fall within abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two, even though the steps of the claim are implemented in a computing environment, the claims do not improve the function of the computer itself or a specific technology. It simply uses standard hardware to carry out the steps of collecting data, identify applications, check application validity and notify them. These are routine operations using conventional computing elements such as processor, memory and OMAPI. There is no specific improvement to how transactions are processed, how applications validation is performed or how data is communicated.
The claims steps of sensing, acquiring, determining, verifying and notifying are implemented using conventional component such as processor, memory and API, and severs in a routine and generic manner. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. U.S Patent Pub. No. 2012/0178366 (referred to hereafter as Levy), and further in view of Nicolau U.S. Patent No. 9,374,712.
As to claim 1, Levy teaches an information processing apparatus in which a device that performs a transaction with an external device is mounted, the information processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to
sense that a transaction has occurred between the device and the external device (see at least abstract and at least paragraphs 0019-0021, 0068, The NFC controller polling from proximate reader and begins session, arbitration occurs during polling session and automatic management without user intervention),
acquire data from the device, in response to the circuitry sensing an occurrence of the transaction (see at least 0027, 0030-0032, and fig. 4, exchange data via NFC controller and passes data up to the selected execution environment or app, i.e. handset 400 and NFC controller 402)
analyze the data acquired from the device to determine one or more applications as notification targets (see at least paragraph 0014, 0015, 0052, and 0062 routing among multiple card apps and execution environment is performed automatically- i.e., choosing the right application to handle the transaction (notification target));
Levy teaches the invention as mentioned. Bove Levy does not explicitly but
Nicolau teaches “verify validity of the one or more applications as the notification targets, and notify each relevant application whose validity has been confirmed among the notification targets, of the acquired data (see Nicolau figs. 2&6, col. 4, lines 1-24; lines 47-52; col. 5 lines 44-52, the operating system includes an access control enforcer that enforces access rules before an application can access the transaction; app identity/signature/certificate are associated with ARA-M/ARA)
wherein the notification to each relevant application is performed via middleware (see Nicolau fig. 2 Ace 46 between OS/app 38 and SE 60, The ACE is an API that mediates application access to secure element resources or interface)”.
t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Nicolau with those of Levy to improve security and enhances flexibility to handle various types and issuers, reduces hardware cost and complexity by enabling one secure element to serve many issuers and simplify provisioning and payment management of payment application while maintaining compliance with mobile payment standards.
As to claim 2, Levy- Nicolau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry senses the occurrence of the transaction based on transmission from an operating system (see Levy at least abstract and paragraphs 0021-0022 events are handles by operating system and NFC that handles polling or activation).
As to claim3, Levy- Nicolau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the circuitry acquires the data from the device via an open mobile API (OMAPI) (see Nicolau figs. 2 and 6, ACE mediating access to ARA-M/SE before the app can talk to SE which is a functional path of OMAPI).
As to claim 4, Levy- Nicolau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires, as the data acquired from the device, processing target data of the transaction and data related to processing of the transaction (see Levy at least paragraphs 0014, 0034, the protocol data processing and related session during polling and transaction is delivered to selected app.
As to claim 5, Levy- Nicolau teaches the information processing according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to identify a service ID related to the transaction based on the data acquired from the device and determine an application as a notification target based on the identified service ID (see Levy at least paragraphs 0046 and 0068, arbitration or selection based on protocol application identifiers for the card App).
As to claim 6, Levy- Nicolau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the circuitry analyzes data related to processing of the transaction, the analyzed data being acquired from the device
As to claim7, Levy- Nicolau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry verifies the validity of each application, based on verification information about the application acquired from a server, and information about the application acquired from an operating system (see Nicolau col.8 line 45- col. 6 line20 and fig. 6, ACE enforce access using app identity from the operating system, rules can be provided or managed remotely (issuer/admin); access rules and control data and ACE control of ARA-M).
As to claim 8, Levy- Nicolau teaches the information processing apparatus according to calm 7, wherein the verification information includes at least one of a package name or a signature value of the application (see Nicolau at least col. 6 lines 50-67).
As to claim 9, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry notifies each relevant application of processing target data of the transaction (see at least Levy paragraphs 0021, 0050, after arbitration, the system provides the actual transaction data to the selected application).
As to claim10, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where there is a plurality of relevant applications, the circuitry performs notification at predetermined time intervals between the plurality of relevant applications (see Levy at least paragraph 0051, 0055, arbitration among multiple applications across polling, times sessions, and priority handling, time-based dispatch among multiple candidates i.e. spaced notification).
As to claim 12, Levy- Nicolau teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information acquired from the server with respect to each application includes at least one of a priority level of notification, a deadline for notification, or an action to be taken when the deadline for notification has passed (see Levy at least paragraphs 0046, 0051 and 0063).
As to claim 13, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the device performs the transaction with the external device through noncontact communication (see Levy at least paragraph 0024, NFC non-contact system).
As to claim14, Levy- Nicolau teaches the information processing apparatus according to 1, wherein the transaction occurs without a start of an application installed in the information processing apparatus and without notice (see Levy at least paragraphs 0019, 0026 and 0046, transactions are automatic, no user selection is needed, the NFC controller auto routes during polling).
Claims 15-20 do not teach anything above and beyond the limitations of claims 1-14 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (Sklovsky U.S. Patent No. 10,311,427) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claims do not overcome the current rejection
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because merely reciting “circuitry configured to” without structural detail remains functional language that does not transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter, as the claims still recite a fundamental data processing workflow of detecting an event, retrieve data, analyzing it, determining recipients, verifying them and distributing notifications. Which is a process that has been found by the court to be abstract and similar to Electric Power Group and FairWarning. Regarding the Alice/may framework, when claims are directed to an abstract idea at Prong One (as these claims are), the analysis continues to Prong Two and Step 2B rather than concluding at Prong One. The additional elements recited in the claims such as middleware, OMAPI, package names, signatures, and NFC communications are conventional computer components and known technologies that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept, and the claims do not identify a specific improvement to computer functionality or technical problem unique to computers that is being solved. Even though certain steps may require automation for practical implementation, the workflow of detecting, analyzing, verifying, and distributing notifications remains abstract and the recitation of circuitry rather than generic units does not change the conclusion where the claims lack structural details or unconventional technical implementation, The rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained.
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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights