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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Status
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed on 1/29/2026. Claims 1-17, 20-22 are pending. Claim 1, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17 are amended. Claims 20-22 have been added. Claims 18-19 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejoinder of claim(s) 16 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the applicant has amended the claims to depend from claim 8. According to 821.04 Rejoinder. In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. The claims are not listed as allowable, however, in the interest of compact prosecution the claims have been examined below.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically “Instead, the claims clearly recite improvements to digital technologies that can automatically identify a missing service type for applications in a user device and subsequently act on that identification by downloading an application with that missing service type. In other words, the claimed system is "necessarily rooted in computer technology" and provides solutions to problems rooted in computer technologies. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claims do not recite a "mental process" or a "method of organizing human activity," as alleged in the Office Action, but instead describe improvements to the technology of data management and computerized applications, such that the claims describe, for example, "scan, by the processor and via a subscription survey application, the data storage of the user device to identify a set of subscription-based applications from the plurality of applications stored on the user device, wherein each of the subscription-based applications includes service features and prices," "determine, by the processor, a first subscription service to offer a user of the user device by identifying a missing service type among the applications in the set, wherein the first subscription service is associated with the missing service type, and wherein the plurality of applications stored on the user device do not comprise the first subscription service" "establish, by the processor, a customer account with a server of a merchant associated with the first subscription service," "download, with the transceiver, a first subscription service application from the server," and "send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account." Again, these are not processes that can be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, Applicant submits the claims do not recite an abstract idea, and the claims are allowable.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims appear to be scanning a device for a service (such as Netflix) and when that isn’t found on the device a service makes an offer to a user for the service (such as Netflix). Offering a service to someone who may not have a service is an abstract idea. The user is targeted with an offer based on what is not currently on their device. The method thus targets marketing to a user based on information known about the user (current applications on the device). Recited at this level of generality, without technical details, this application is directed to targeted marketing/advertising (a method that allows for users to accept a subscription offer and login to access the service ) and recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. The application is also directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The test is not whether or not the claims could be performed in the human mind, it is if the claim read as a whole in light of the specification is directed to an abstract idea not whether or not the steps can physically be performed by a human without a computer. The invention is merely performing a mental process on a generic computer. Looking through a list of data storage or applications on a device and making a determination of an application that may not be currently on the device especially in the realm of a subscription offer could be done by a human flipping through the pages of a generic device. In DDR holdings the court emphasized that the claims at issue solved a problem arising from the Internet itself, specifically, that clicking a hyperlink would take a visitor away from a host website. Applicant’s claims are not analogous with DDR, applicant’s claims involve a user device that lacks a particular subscription service. This is not a problem that arises from computer technology, this is a commercial problem (a customer that is not enrolled in a product) that happens to be observed by a computer. Each of the argued steps are a conventional computer operation applied to a commercial objective. The technological components are generic, and any improvement would be a commercial division logic of identifying what service to sell.
The applicant has argued “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent-eligible because the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by using a "plurality of applications," "a screen," "a processor," "a transceiver," "data storage," and a "memory" in a "meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." MPEP § 2106.04(d). Importantly, amended independent Claim 1 now recites "determine, by the processor, a first subscription service to offer a user of the user device by identifying a missing service type among the applications in the set, wherein the first subscription service is associated with the missing service type, and wherein the plurality of applications stored on the user device do not comprise the first subscription service." Claim 8 recites analogous limitations. This limitation makes explicit that the user device is identifying a gap in its own application ecosystem-a service type that is missing from the applications stored on the device-and then taking automated action to fill that gap by downloading an application that was not previously on the device. This is a device-centric technical solution where the device programmatically analyzes its own storage, identifies what it lacks, and automatically remediates that gap.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is merely using a generic user device to perform the steps of the invention without any technical improvements. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[M]ere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atl., 955 F.3d 971, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he use of well-known computer components to collect, analyze, and present data, in this case to verify financial transactions, does not render these claims any less abstract.”); DDR, 773 F.3d at 1256 (“And after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. . . . The bare fact that a computer exists in the physical rather than purely conceptual realm ‘is beside the point.’” (citations omitted)); (arguing the claims are machine implemented with a database, hardware processors, and electronic interface). The applicant appears to be arguing that offering a service that a user does not already have as a technological improvement. This is not a technical constraint on how the device operates it appears to be a commercial rule, do not offer a customer a product that they already have. Nothing about the device’s hardware or software architecture is changed or improved. What changes is merely the commercial decision made based on the scanned results, which offers a service. Although the applicant argues the gap is a technical deficiency in the device, this is not the case. The device is operating “fine.” The gap is a commercial one not a repair to a malfunction or improvement to any technical capability of the device.
The applicant has argued “That is, the Applicant's claimed technology provides an unconventional improvement in the computer technology of identifying a missing application to offer to a customer. The claimed technology allows for the identification of a missing service type among applications in a user device and then the subsequent offer of a first subscription service that is associated with the missing service type to an identified customer. The device then downloads an application that fills the identified gap in its application ecosystem. The "scan," "download," "determine," and "send" steps are a specific, computer-implemented solution that distance the claims from an abstract idea and place the claimed subject matter directly into an allowable, practical application. The claims provide a solution to a technical problem that allows the device to self-diagnose gaps in its application ecosystem and automatically remediate those gaps by downloading, configuring, and logging into new subscription service applications.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant appears to be arguing that the device “self-diagnoses” a gap in its system and remediates it. However, the gap as claimed is not a technical deficiency, the device is operating and functioning fine. The gap is merely a commercial one, the user is not enrolled in a particular subscription service. Downloading an app and creating an account does not fix any issue or improve a technical capability of the device, it merely completes a commercial transaction.
The applicant has argued “The recent Appeals Review Panel decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2025), further supports the patent eligibility of the present claims. In Desjardins, the Panel vacated a § 101 rejection, holding that claims reciting improvements to how a machine learning model operates-specifically, improvements that allow the system to "us[e] less of their storage capacity" and enable "reduced system complexity"-integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. The Panel emphasized that "Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements," and that "[s]oftware can make non- abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can." Id. (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, the claims similarly recite improvements to how the user device itself operates-specifically, the device scans its own data storage, identifies a gap in its application ecosystem, and automatically remediates that gap by downloading, configuring, and logging into a new subscription service application. This is an improvement to the functioning of the device itself, not merely the application of an abstract idea using generic computer components.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. In Desjardins the claims are directed to improvements in how a machine learning model itself functions, specifically reducing storage consumption and system complexity, which are technical metrics of the device’s own operation. Applicant’s claims make no improvement to how any component of the user device operates. Applicant’s processor, transceiver, memory, and storage all function the same before and after the method is applied. The only output is a subscription which is a commercial enrollment. This is a benefit is not a commercial benefit not to the technical functioning of the device. Although the invention could allow users a suggestion to download an application based on the claims the application could merely be a streaming service. Having a lack of a streaming service (Netflix) and being suggested that the user download this application for a streaming service would not be a technical solution to a technical problem. Not having a specific streaming service is not a technical problem. Any benefit received by the invention in the claims would be directed to the abstract idea and would not be directed to a technical improvement.
Any convenience to a user results from the generic computer implementation. Merely implementing a fundamental practice on generic computers to perform tasks more quickly or accurately is not enough to make a claim non-abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (generating a product pricing model based on survey data of prices and statistical analysis of the survey data to determine an estimated outcome was similar to other fundamental economic practices using generic computer activities). In OIP, the method tested prices for a product by sending offers to potential customers at different prices and offer terms, gathering statistics generated during testing of how potential customers responded to different offers, using a computerized system to determine, based on the generated statistics, an estimated outcome of using each price, selecting a price to sell a product based on the estimated outcome, and sending offers at the selected price to customers. Id. at 1361. Such computer automation to perform tasks more quickly or accurately did not make the claims eligible.
Optimizing subscription is a fundamental, long prevalent practice. See OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363; RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”); Apple, 842 F.3d at 1240 (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). That a subscription automates what a purchaser otherwise would do manually using individual searches is not sufficient. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem.”); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (automation of manual processes on generic computers is not a patentable improvement to computer technology); OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363 (“At best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic computer functions.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (to salvage a patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claim in a way that a person making calculations and computations could not do). A person can offer and receive subscriptions.
All of the computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming”). Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform the computer functions. Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, claim 1 does not affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access under different scenarios (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 20, Fig. 1.) Thus, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The applicant has argued “Here, the claims do not merely recite mental processes, as the Office Action seems to indicate. See Office Action at 7. Instead, the claims recite significantly more: a particular ordered combination of limitations that yield an unconventional result when viewed as a whole. The instant amendments to the independent claims further highlight the unconventional nature of the claimed invention. For example, amended Claims 1 and 8 recite or analogously recite "scan, by the processor and via a subscription survey application, the data storage of the user device to identify a set of subscription-based applications from the plurality of applications stored on the user device," "determine, by the processor, a first subscription service to offer a user of the user device by identifying a missing service type among the applications in the set, wherein the first subscription service is associated with the missing service type, and wherein the plurality of applications stored on the user device do not comprise the first subscription service," "establish, by the processor, a customer account with a server of a merchant associated with the first subscription service," "download, with the transceiver, a first subscription service application from the server," "generate, with the processor, login information for the customer account," "send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account," and "login, with the processor, the user into the first subscription service application using the login information." (Emphasis added).” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant merely states limitations but fails to actually state what could be considered significantly more. The steps are argued by the applicant scan, identify, establish, download, describes conventional computer operations executed in their ordinary manner. Business logic which helps to decide which service to offer and when to offer it would not be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, next considered under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of additional elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of additional elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; see also MPEP § 2106.05(II). The additional elements recited in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea are generic computer components. The applicant did not even argue or maintain that the operation of these components is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, further there is nothing in the Specification to indicate that the operations recited in claim 1 require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions.
The applicant has argued “Amended dependent Claim 9 recites additional features that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Specifically, Claim 9 recites "deleting, from the data storage, one or more applications of the same service type as the first subscription service." This limitation demonstrates that the device is not merely recommending services-which could be characterized as marketing-but is actively managing its own application ecosystem by "identifying a missing service type among the applications in the set," "download[ing], with the transceiver, a first subscription service application from the server," "login[ning], with the processor, the user into the first subscription service application," and "deleting, from the data storage, one or more applications of the same service type as the first subscription service." This ordered combination of scanning, identifying a missing service type, downloading a new application, logging the user in, and then deleting applications of the same service type represents a concrete technical improvement to how the device manages its installed applications that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 9 which recites deleting applications of the same service type after downloading the new one is not directed to significantly more or to a technical improvement. Deleting a file from storage is a basic computer operation. The deletion is triggered by a commercial decision, replacing one subscription service with another, does not render the deletion step unconventional. The decision to delete does not transform the deletion itself into an inventive concept.
The applicant has argued “Moreover, the Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed that "[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact" that "must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011)). Moreover, a recent USPTO memorandum states that "an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well- understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. USPTO Memorandum, "Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)" at 3 (April 19, 2018) (emphasis in original) ("Berkheimer Memo"). The Berkheimer Memo requires that the Examiner "expressly support a rejection in writing, with one or more of the following:" (1) a citation to the specification or statement made by an applicant during prosecution, (2) a citation to a court decision, (3) a citation to a publication, or (4) a statement that the examiner is taking official notice. Id. at 3-4. The Berkheimer Memo further provides, "[t]he question of whether additional elements represent well- understood, routine, conventional activity is distinct from patentability over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103" because "a showing that additional elements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or even that they lack novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102, is not by itself sufficient to establish that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities or elements to those in the relevant field." Id. at 3. That is, "'[w]hether a particular technology is well- understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional."' Id. (quoting Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369). For something to be well-understood, routine, and conventional, "a publication would need to demonstrate that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)." Id. at 4. Here, Applicant submits that at least "scan, by the processor and via a subscription survey application, the data storage of the user device to identify a set of subscription-based applications from the plurality of applications stored on the user device," "determine, by the processor, a first subscription service to offer a user of the user device by identifying a missing service type among the applications in the set, wherein the first subscription service is associated with the missing service type, and wherein the plurality of applications stored on the user device do not comprise the first subscription service," and "send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account" are additional elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. (Emphasis added). And again, according to the Berkheimer Memo, "an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry." Berkheimer Memo at 3. Thus, Applicant submits that these additional elements amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification see ¶ 43-47, disclose the hardware components at issue (processor, transceiver, memory, data storage, screen) as standard elements of a conventional user device. There is not suggestion that they operate in an unconventional manner. The specification does not describe any modification to how these components function. The specification does not identify any technical problem with existing processors, transceivers, or storage systems that the invention solves. The hardware is simply the platform on which the commercial method runs. The individual operations recited are conventional. The applicant has not identified any specific technical elements in the claim that operates in a manner that departs from its conventional function. The previous 101 rejection is maintained and updated below.
The applicant has argued the previous 103 rejection in view of amendments. An updated search was conducted and the previous 103 rejection is updated below.
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 1-17, 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-17, 20-22 are directed to a device, claims 8-15 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-17, 20-22 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) (a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity). Specifically the independent claims 1, 8 recite:
(a) mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitations of scanning data, determining an information related to subscription services, displaying an offer, receiving an acceptance, establishing an account, generating login information, sending the login information, and downloading which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the processor” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses a user selecting an application and logging and does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process.
(b) certain methods of organizing human activity: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method that allows for identifying what subscription services a customer lacks and automatically enrolling them in a new one. This is a commercial method of customer acquisition and service enrollment. The claims are directed to the certain methods of organizing human activities (e.g., marketing or sales activities/ behaviors) category of abstract ideas. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 8 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a device comprising “a user device, a processor; a plurality of applications; a transceiver; a screen comprising a first graphical user interface (GUI) and a second GUI; and memory, in communication with the processor, the plurality of applications, the transceiver and the screen, display, on the first GUI, receive, at the first GUI, an acceptance of the offer, establish, by the processor, download, with the transceiver, a first subscription service application from the server; generate, with the processor, login information for the customer account; and send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server.” Claim 8 is a method that recites limitations “scanning, by a processor of a user device, a data storage of the user device, determining, by the processor, a subscription service, displaying, on a first graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a screen of the user device, an offer for the first subscription service; receiving, at the first GUI, an acceptance of the offer for the first subscription service from the user; establishing, by the processor, generating and sending, by the processor, login information, automatically downloading, with a transceiver of the user device, a first subscription service application from the server.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to determine, display, receive, or download data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 6, 14, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 10 introduces the additional element of “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the user device to: encrypt, with the processor, the login information in a hashed data type format; and send, with the transceiver, the encrypted login information to a user address.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 3, 11, introduces the additional element of “generate, with the processor, a first graph that illustrates service features and prices associated with the first subscription service; and display, in the first GUI, the first graph as the offer.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 4, 12, introduces the additional element of “compare, with the processor, the price of each of the subscription-based applications and the price of the first subscription service to identify any differences; generate, with the processor, a second graph that highlights the differences; and display, in the second GUI, the second graph.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 5, 13, introduces the additional element of “compare, with the processor, the service features of each of the subscription-based applications and the price of the first subscription service to identify any differences; generate, with the processor, a second graph that highlights the differences; and display, in the second GUI, the second graph.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 7, 15, introduces the additional element of “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the user device to generate, with the processor, a first display on the first GUI that shows a discounted rate for the first subscription service based at least in part on a bundled package provided by a financial institution associated with one application of the plurality of applications.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “logging, with the processor, the user into the first subscription service application using the login information; deleting, from the data storage, one or more application of the same service type.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 16 introduces the additional element of “transmitting, with the transceiver, a sign-up request, receiving, at the user device.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 17 introduces the additional element of “receiving, with the transceiver, displaying, on the first GUI.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20 introduces the additional element of “download by a processor.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 21 introduces the additional element of “biometric data retrieved from the memory of the user device.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
31. Dependent claim 22 introduces the additional element of “retrieve payment information from the data storage of the user device; and transmit the payment information to the server.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 8, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, claim 1 is a device comprising “a user device, a processor; a plurality of applications; a transceiver; a screen comprising a first graphical user interface (GUI) and a second GUI; and memory, in communication with the processor, the plurality of applications, the transceiver and the screen, display, on the first GUI, receive, at the first GUI, an acceptance of the offer, establish, by the processor, download, with the transceiver, a first subscription service application from the server; generate, with the processor, login information for the customer account; and send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server.” Claim 8 is a method that recites limitations “scanning, by a processor of a user device, a data storage of the user device, determining, by the processor, a subscription service, displaying, on a first graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a screen of the user device, an offer for the first subscription service; receiving, at the first GUI, an acceptance of the offer for the first subscription service from the user; establishing, by the processor, generating and sending, by the processor, login information, automatically downloading, with a transceiver of the user device, a first subscription service application from the server.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 6, 14, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 10 introduces the additional element of “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the user device to: encrypt, with the processor, the login information in a hashed data type format; and send, with the transceiver, the encrypted login information to a user address.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3, 11, introduces the additional element of “generate, with the processor, a first graph that illustrates service features and prices associated with the first subscription service; and display, in the first GUI, the first graph as the offer.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 4, 12, introduces the additional element of “compare, with the processor, the price of each of the subscription-based applications and the price of the first subscription service to identify any differences; generate, with the processor, a second graph that highlights the differences; and display, in the second GUI, the second graph.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 5, 13, introduces the additional element of “compare, with the processor, the service features of each of the subscription-based applications and the price of the first subscription service to identify any differences; generate, with the processor, a second graph that highlights the differences; and display, in the second GUI, the second graph.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 7, 15, introduces the additional element of “wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the user device to generate, with the processor, a first display on the first GUI that shows a discounted rate for the first subscription service based at least in part on a bundled package provided by a financial institution associated with one application of the plurality of applications.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “logging, with the processor, the user into the first subscription service application using the login information; deleting, from the data storage, one or more application of the same service type.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 16 introduces the additional element of “transmitting, with the transceiver, a sign-up request, receiving, at the user device.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 17 introduces the additional element of “receiving, with the transceiver, displaying, on the first GUI.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20 introduces the additional element of “download by a processor.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 21 introduces the additional element of “biometric data retrieved from the memory of the user device.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 22 introduces the additional element of “retrieve payment information from the data storage of the user device; and transmit the payment information to the server.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, display, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-17, 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant has amended the independent claims 1, 8, to include the limitation of send[ing], “with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account.” Although the applicant has support in ¶ 5 for the use of the transceiver the applicant does not have support in the originally filed disclosure for the user device to send the generated login information to the merchant server to register it. The user device in the specification generates login credentials and then uses them to locally log in ¶ 45 it does not transmit them back to the merchant for registration purposes. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant has amended the claim to include limitations of “receiving, at the user device, a confirmation from the server of the financial institution that the financial institution has purchased the first subscription service from the server of the merchant on behalf of the user; and receiving, at the user device, an indication that payment for the first subscription service has been processed using payment information retrieved by the financial institution from customer data associated with the user.” The applicant has support for a financial institutions server, payment processing, and the purchase happening but does not describe a confirmation of that purchase being transmitted to and received by the user device. The applicant has support in the originally filed disclosure for a financial institution server and the financial institution retrieving payment information the applicant does not have support for the user device receiving an indication that this processing occurred. Appropriate action is required.
The dependent claims inherit the rejection of the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 20-22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20200304626 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 20090055266 A1) in view of Raleigh et al. (WO 2012139050 A1) in view of Kalb et al (US 20160014093 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips discloses a user device comprising: a processor; a data storage; a plurality of applications; a transceiver; a screen comprising a first graphical user interface (GUI) and a second GUI; and memory, in communication with the processor, the plurality of applications, the transceiver and the screen, and storing instructions that, when executed (¶ 180, discloses a memory, processors, ¶ 129, 142, 181, discloses GUIs, ¶ 182, 429-430, 492-495, 519, discloses interfaces, ¶ 48, 98-102, discloses a transceiver);
by the processor and via a subscription survey application, a set of subscription-based applications from the plurality of applications, wherein each of the subscription-based applications includes service features and prices (¶ 366-367, discloses displaying featured subscription applications and the price of the application, ¶ 375-380, discloses subscription information including pricing and features of the application, ¶ 242, 375, 391, 394, 416, discloses selectable service features and options. ¶ 75, 241, 246, 305, 391, discloses a plurality of service types);
determine, by the processor, a first subscription service to offer a user of the user device (¶ 334-335, discloses recommending subscription applications, ¶ 366, 425, 435 discloses recommending items to a user);
display, on the first GUI, an offer for the first subscription service (¶ 258, 334-335, discloses displaying recommending subscription applications, ¶ 366, 425, 435 discloses displaying recommending items to a user);
receive, at the first GUI, an acceptance of the offer for the first subscription service from the user (¶ 400-401, discloses agreeing to purchase the subscription, ¶ 449, 472, 552, discloses receiving user input corresponding to a request to subscribe);
download, with the transceiver, a first subscription service application from the server (¶ 107, 113, discloses the use of RF circuitry in downloading applications. ¶ 197, 213-217, 246, 406, 410, 460, discloses downloading application);
Phillips does not specifically teach establishing a customer account or generating a login.
However, Brody teaches establish, by the processor, a customer account with a server of a merchant associated with the first subscription service (¶ 63, discloses account set up, ¶ 49, 65, discloses the establishing of an account, Table V ¶ 84, 149, discloses account registration);
generate, with the processor, login information for the customer account (¶ 43, 63, 66, discloses creating a log-in ID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform establishing a customer account and generating a login, as taught/suggested by Brody. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brody would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Brody to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such account features into similar systems. Further, applying establishing a customer account or generating a login would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have access to the system.
Phillips does not specifically teach scanning a user device for an application and identifying a missing service type among the applications.
However, Raleigh teaches scan by the processor and via a subscription survey application the data storage of the user device to identify a set of subscription-based applications from the plurality of applications stored on the user device (¶ 56-58, 103, discloses scanning by a processor application to identify missing applications and services or applications to offer.)
determine, by the processor, a first subscription service to offer a user of the user device by identifying a missing service type among the applications in the set, wherein the first subscription service is associated with the missing service type, and wherein the plurality of applications stored on the user device do not comprise the first subscription service (¶ 56-58, 60, 103, discloses scanning by a processor application to identify missing applications and services or applications to offer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform identifying a missing service type among the applications, as taught/suggested by Raleigh. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to launching service based objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Raleigh would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Raleigh to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such identifying features into similar systems. Further, applying identifying a missing service type among the applications would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to address gaps in the technology.
Phillips does not specifically teach send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account.
However, Kalb teaches send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account (¶ 47-48, discloses generating and sending login information. Fig. 6, 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account, as taught/suggested by Kalb. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to generates service based objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kalb would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kalb to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such registering features into similar systems. Further, applying send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user to login and register the new account.
Regarding claim 8, Phillips discloses a processor (¶ 178, 180, 192);
determine, by the processor, a set of subscription-based applications from the plurality of applications, (¶ 366-367, discloses displaying featured subscription applications and the price of the application, ¶ 375-380, discloses subscription information including pricing and features of the application, ¶ 242, 375, 391, 394, 416, discloses selectable service features and options. ¶ 75, 241, 246, 305, 391, discloses a plurality of service types);
determining, by the processor, a first subscription service to offer a user of the user device (¶ 334-335, discloses recommending subscription applications, ¶ 366, 425, 435 discloses recommending items to a user);
displaying, on a first graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a screen of the user device, an offer for the first subscription service (¶ 258, 334-335, discloses displaying recommending subscription applications, ¶ 366, 425, 435 discloses displaying recommending items to a user);
receiving, at the first GUI, an acceptance of the offer for the first subscription service from the user (¶ 400-401, discloses agreeing to purchase the subscription, ¶ 449, 472, 552, discloses receiving user input corresponding to a request to subscribe);
and automatically downloading, with a transceiver of the user device, a first subscription service application from the server (¶ 107, 113, discloses the use of RF circuitry in downloading applications. ¶ 197, 213-217, 246, 406, 410, 460, discloses downloading application).
Phillips does not specifically teach establishing a customer account.
However, Brody teaches establishing, by the processor, a customer account with a server of a merchant associated with the first subscription service (¶ 63, discloses account set up, ¶ 49, 65, discloses the establishing of an account, Table V ¶ 84, 149, discloses account registration);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform establishing a customer account, as taught/suggested by Brody. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brody would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Brody to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such account features into similar systems. Further, applying establishing a customer account would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have access to the system.
Phillips does not specifically teach scanning a user device for an application and identifying a missing service type among the applications.
However, Raleigh teaches scanning, by the processor of the user device to identify a set of subscription-based applications from the plurality of applications stored on the user device (¶ 56-58, 103, discloses scanning by a processor application to identify missing applications and services or applications to offer.)
determining, by the processor, a first subscription service to offer a user of the user device by identifying a missing service type among the applications in the set, wherein the first subscription service is associated with the missing service type, and wherein the applications in the set do not comprise the first subscription service (¶ 56-58, 60, 103, discloses scanning by a processor application to identify missing applications and services or applications to offer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform identifying a missing service type among the applications, as taught/suggested by Raleigh. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to launching service based objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Raleigh would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Raleigh to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such identifying features into similar systems. Further, applying identifying a missing service type among the applications would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to address gaps in the technology.
Phillips does not specifically teach send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account.
However, Kalb teaches generating, by the processor, login information for the customer account (¶ 47-48, discloses generating and sending login information. Fig. 6, 7);
send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account (¶ 47-48, discloses generating and sending login information. Fig. 6, 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account, as taught/suggested by Kalb. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to generates service based objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kalb would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kalb to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such registering features into similar systems. Further, applying send, with the transceiver, the login information to the server of the merchant to register the login information with the customer account would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user to login and register the new account.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh, and Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claim.
Phillips further teaches responsive to receiving the acceptance of the offer for the first subscription service, download, by the processor, the first subscription service application, wherein the subscription survey application identifies the set of subscription-based applications based on payment information associated with a recurring payment for a product or service (¶ 107, 197, discloses downloading subscription applications. ¶ 211-212, 416, discloses a subscription payment interface. ¶ 242, 316, 367, 372, 514).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh, and Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claim.
Phillips further teaches wherein the login information comprises biometric data retrieved from the memory of the user device or received from the user (¶ 141, 557, 578-580, discloses biometric inputs). Also taught by Brody.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh, and Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claim.
Phillips further teaches retrieve payment information from the data storage of the user device; and transmit the payment information to the server of the merchant associated with the first subscription service to configure automatic payment for the first subscription service (¶ 400, discloses automatically charging for a subscription service). Also taught by Brody (¶ 45, 52, 67, 97, the SPMS retrieves payment information (credit card, billing address, email) for the distributors stored customer data and using it to set up automatic subscription billing. ¶ 22).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20200304626 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 20090055266 A1) in view of Raleigh et al. (WO 2012139050 A1) in view of Kalb et al (US 20160014093 A1) in further view of Splaine et al. (US 20170180797 A1).
Regarding claims 2 the combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh and Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claims. Phillips teaches encryption (¶ 96), Brody teaches encryption (¶ 58, 110-112). The combination does not specifically teach a hashed data format.
However, Splaine teaches encrypt, with the processor, the login information in a hashed data type format; and send, with the transceiver, the encrypted login information to a user address (¶ 37, discloses a subscriber ID that may be hashed. ¶ 41, 47, which disclose identifiers that are hashed encrypted, ¶ 66, 75, disclose the use of a transceiver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform a hashed data format, as taught/suggested by Splaine. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Splaine would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Splaine to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such security features into similar systems. Further, applying a hashed data format would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for additional security and data integrity.
Claim(s) 3-5, 11-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20200304626 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 20090055266 A1) in view of Raleigh et al. (WO 2012139050 A1) in view of Kalb et al (US 20160014093 A1) in further view of Loh et al. (US 10685392 B1).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh and Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claims. The combination does not specifically teach a price feature graph.
However, Loh teaches generate, with the processor, a first graph that illustrates service features and prices associated with the first subscription service; and display, in the first GUI, the first graph as the offer (See the graphs in figure 1-5, col. 1, lines 64 – col. 2, line 41, col. 2, line 56 – col. 3, line 43, disclose the details of Fig. 1 that generates a display including various app subscriptions features and prices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform a price feature graph, as taught/suggested by Loh. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Loh would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Loh to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such display features into similar systems. Further, applying a price feature graph would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have a visual display of the subscription options.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the combination of Phillips, Brody, and Raleigh, Loh teach the limitations of claim 3 and 11.
Loh further teaches compare, with the processor, the price of each of the subscription-based applications and the price of the first subscription service to identify any differences; generate, with the processor, a second graph that highlights the differences; and display, in the second GUI, the second graph (See the graphs in figure 1-5, col. 1, lines 64 – col. 2, line 41, col. 2, line 56 – col. 3, line 43, disclose the details of Fig. 1 that generates a display including various app subscriptions features and prices, Fig. 5 is a second graph that contains differences, as described in col. 7, lines 29-47, col. 7, line 60-col. 8, line 13, discloses a price comparison. Fig. 5 discloses the differences between going with a yearly vs a monthly subscription service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform a price feature graph, as taught/suggested by Loh. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Loh would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Loh to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such display features into similar systems. Further, applying a price feature graph would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have a visual display of the subscription options.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combination of Phillips, Brody, and Raleigh, Loh teach the limitations of claim 3 and 11.
Loh further teaches compare, with the processor, the service features of each of the subscription-based applications and the price of the first subscription service to identify any differences; generate, with the processor, a second graph that highlights the differences; and display, in the second GUI, the second graph (See the graphs in figure 1-5, col. 1, lines 64 – col. 2, line 41, col. 2, line 56 – col. 3, line 43, disclose the details of Fig. 1 that generates a display including various app subscriptions features and prices, Fig. 5 is a second graph that contains differences, as described in col. 7, lines 29-47, col. 7, line 60-col. 8, line 13, discloses a price comparison. Fig. 5 discloses the differences between going with a yearly vs a monthly subscription service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform a price feature graph, as taught/suggested by Loh. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Loh would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Loh to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such display features into similar systems. Further, applying a price feature graph would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have a visual display of the subscription options.
Claim(s) 6, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20200304626 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 20090055266 A1) in view of Raleigh et al. (WO 2012139050 A1) in view of Kalb et al (US 20160014093 A1) in further view of Kohli (US 20190087845 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh and Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claims.
Phillips does not specifically teach scanning a user device for an application and identifying a missing service type among the applications.
However, Raleigh teaches identifying, by the processor, a plurality of subscription services of the missing service type (¶ 56-58, 103, discloses scanning by a processor application to identify missing applications and services or applications to offer.)
comparing, by the processor, service features and prices associated with each of the plurality of subscription services (¶ 56-58, 60, 103, discloses scanning by a processor application to identify missing applications and services or applications to offer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform identifying a missing service type among the applications, as taught/suggested by Raleigh. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to launching service based objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Raleigh would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Raleigh to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such identifying features into similar systems. Further, applying identifying a missing service type among the applications would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to address gaps in the technology.
The combination does not specifically teach details related to a geographic region.
However, Kohli teaches selecting, by the processor, the first subscription service from the plurality of subscription services based on availability within a geographic region associated with the user (¶ 33, 86-91, disclose offering a subscription based on geographical location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform a subscription offer based on geographic region, as taught/suggested by Kohli. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kohli would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kohli to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such account features into similar systems. Further, applying a subscription offer based on geographic region would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow specific customers to be contacted with regards to subscriptions that may be of interest to them.
Claim(s) 7, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20200304626 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 20090055266 A1) in view of Raleigh et al. (WO 2012139050 A1) in view of Kalb et al (US 20160014093 A1) in further view of Woods (US 20140095341 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 15, Phillips teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the user device to generate, with the processor, a first display on the first GUI that shows a bundled package with one application of the plurality of applications (¶ 372, 406-407, teaches bundling applications.)
The combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh and Kalb does not specifically teach details related a reduced price for a bundle.
However, Woods teaches a first display on the first GUI that shows a discounted rate for the first subscription service based at least in part on a bundled package provided by a financial institution associated with one application of the plurality of applications (¶ 39-40, discloses a package offed by a financial institution. ¶ 113-115, disclose a discounted rate based on the bundle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform a reduced price for a bundle, as taught/suggested by Woods. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Woods would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Woods to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such account bundled features into similar systems. Further, applying a reduced price for a bundle would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for a financial benefit for the users.
65. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20200304626 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 20090055266 A1) in view of Raleigh et al. (WO 2012139050 A1) in view of Kalb et al (US 20160014093 A1) in further view of Ryu et al. (US 20200183547 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh, Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claims.
Brody further teaches and logging, with the processor, the user into the first subscription service application using the login information (¶ 44, 66, 86-89, discloses login into a website.)
The combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh and Kalb does not specifically teach deleting, from the data storage, one or more applications of the same service type as the first subscription service.
However, Ryu teaches deleting, from the data storage, one or more applications of the same service type as the first subscription service (¶ 11, 20, 256-273, 332, disclose the process of identifying and deleting duplicate applications.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform deleting, from the data storage, one or more applications of the same service type as the first subscription service, as taught/suggested by Ryu. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing mobile applications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ryu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ryu to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such account features into similar systems. Further, applying deleting, from the data storage, one or more applications of the same service type as the first subscription service would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to remove access applications.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20200304626 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 20090055266 A1) in view of Raleigh et al. (WO 2012139050 A1) in view of Kalb et al (US 20160014093 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US 20200183547 A1) in further view of Splaine et al. (US 20170180797 A1).
Regarding claims 10, the combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh and Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claims. Phillips teaches encryption (¶ 96), Brody teaches encryption (¶ 58, 110-112). The combination does not specifically teach a hashed data format.
However, Splaine teaches encrypt, with the processor, the login information in a hashed data type format; and send, with the transceiver, the encrypted login information to a user address (¶ 37, discloses a subscriber ID that may be hashed. ¶ 41, 47, which disclose identifiers that are hashed encrypted, ¶ 66, 75, disclose the use of a transceiver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform a hashed data format, as taught/suggested by Splaine. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Splaine would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Splaine to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such security features into similar systems. Further, applying a hashed data format would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for additional security and data integrity.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20200304626 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 20090055266 A1) in view of Raleigh et al. (WO 2012139050 A1) in view of Kalb et al (US 20160014093 A1) in further view of Tietzen et al. (US 20160086212 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Phillips, Brody, Raleigh, Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claim.
Brody further teaches transmitting, with the transceiver, a sign-up request to a server of an institution associated with the user, wherein the sign-up request identifies the first subscription service (¶ 42, discloses checking out after selecting an offer. ¶ 50-52, discloses passing a cross-selling offer. ¶ 37, 68, 96);
receiving, at the user device, a confirmation from the server of the institution that the financial institution has purchased the first subscription service from the server of the merchant on behalf of the user (¶ 42, discloses checking out after selecting an offer. ¶ 50-52, the SPMS acts as a purchasing intermediary that places a requisition with the supplier on behalf of the consumer. ¶ 37, 68, 96);
and receiving, at the user device, an indication that payment for the first subscription service has been processed using payment information retrieved by the institution from customer data associated with the user (¶ 51-52, the SPMS retrieves billing information including credit card number, billing address, and email from the distributor, and uses it to complete the purchase on the customer’s behalf. ¶ 42, 37, 68, 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform signing up for a service through an intermediary, as taught/suggested by Brody. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brody would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Brody to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such account features into similar systems. Further, applying signing up for a service through an intermediary would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have personalized recommendations through a trusted source.
The combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh and Kalb does not teach the financial institution as the intermediary.
However, Tietzen teaches signing up for a subscription service through a financial institution (¶ 428, teaches a subscription through a loyalty system. ¶ 152, 156, 161, 215, discloses a loyalty system entering into a contract with a financial institution.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform signing up for a subscription service through a financial institution, as taught/suggested by Tietzen. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Tietzen would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Tietzen to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such account features into similar systems. Further, applying signing up for a subscription service through a financial institution would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have transactions completed through a trusted source.
Regarding claim 17, Phillips, Brody, Raleigh, Kalb teach the limitations of the independent claim.
Brody further teaches receiving, with the transceiver, a summary of a plurality of subscription categories from the server of the institution (¶ 40-42, discloses listing a catalog of products and services organized into categories. ¶ 37, 68, 50-52, 96, Fig. 3A, 6A, 6B);
displaying, on the first GUI, the summary of the plurality of subscription categories (¶ 40-42, discloses listing a catalog of products and services organized into categories. ¶ 37, 68, 50-52, 96, Fig. 3A, 6A, 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform a list of subscriptions through an intermediary, as taught/suggested by Brody. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brody would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Brody to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such account features into similar systems. Further, applying a list of subscriptions through an intermediary would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have personalized recommendations through a trusted source.
The combination of Phillips, Brody, Raleigh and Kalb does not teach the financial institution as the intermediary.
However, Tietzen teaches a financial institution (¶ 428, teaches a subscription through a loyalty system. ¶ 152, 156, 161, 215, discloses a loyalty system entering into a contract with a financial institution.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Phillips to include/perform a list of subscription services through a financial institution, as taught/suggested by Tietzen. This known technique is applicable to the system of Phillips as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing subscription based services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Tietzen would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Tietzen to the teachings of Phillips would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such account features into similar systems. Further, applying a list of subscription services through a financial institution would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have transactions completed through a trusted source.
Other pertinent prior art includes Typaldos et al. (US 20140156467 A1) which discloses combining software applications into a bundle that provides users access to the software applications included in the software application bundle. Book et al. (US 11423373 B1) which discloses identifying opportunities for subscriptions for merchants and/or customers using transaction data associated with past transactions. D’Souza et al. (US 7986935 B1) discloses a service plan optimizer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights