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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations of a method of performing a data transfer comprising “determining…a virtual kernel identifier…” and “determining…the respective kernel to be utilized…” which are processes that can be perform in the mind. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, therefore, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recite the following additional elements of “a device” in performing various processes are recited so generically that they represent not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using or on a generic computing system and performing generic computer function. Additionally, “utilizing…the respective kernel to facilitate the data transfer” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “utilizing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(f). The “receiving…information for data transfer” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a device” in performing various processes are recited so generically that they represent not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using or on a generic computing system and performing generic computer function, and as to the “receiving…information for data transfer” the courts have identified mere data transmission as well-understood, routine and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitation “utilizing…the respective kernel to facilitate the data transfer” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “utilizing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 18, the claim recite additional mental process of “further” determining which is rejected for the same reason as claim 17 above.
As to claim 19, the “mapping” limitations recite additional mental process, and the limitations to “receiving” of a request are merely insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2. Under step 2B, as explained above, the courts have identified transmitting data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 20, the “determining” and “mapping” limitations recite additional mental processes, and the limitations to “receiving” of a request are merely insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2. Under step 2B, as explained above, the courts have identified transmitting data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claims 1-2 and 6-7, these claims are rejected for the same rationale as claims 17-20 above. Additionally, the claims recite the additional element of “computer-readable media” and “processor(s)” which are merely generic computer components, thus is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As to claims 3 and 8, the claims recite additional mental processes of “determining” and “generate” respectively, which are rejected for the same reason as claim 17 above.
As to claim 9, this claim does not recite any mental process, however, the additional elements recited in this claim merely describes the host of the processor being a device component and the intended functions of the device component thus are considered to merely apply the abstract idea which is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As to claims 10-12 and 15-16, these claims are rejected for the same rationale as claims 1-3 and 6-7 above.
Furthermore, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it failed to fall within a statutory category. Although examples of non-transitory computer-readable media were given in applicant’s specification [paragraph 147] applicant failed to specifically define "computer-readable media" such that the examiner is giving it the broadest reasonable interpretation as known in the art to include statutory (i.e. non-transitory media such as hard drive, memory, etc.) and non-statutory medium (i.e. signal), hence a computer-readable medium is not limited to statutory embodiment and therefore non-statutory. The examiner suggest amending the claim to read "non-transitory computer-readable medium" to overcome the outstanding rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are allowable by overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above.
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claims taken as a whole, the invention as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 17.
Initiation of or requesting of a transaction [sections 4.2-4.3, pp. 8-9] via a system/device/terminal which received the transaction including selection of an application to support the transaction hence identifies the application [section 4.4 Entry Point, p. 10; Section 5.2 Terminal and Reader Responsibilities, p. 13; Section 5.3, Logical Architecture, p. 14]; Mapping of AID(s) (Application Identifier(s)) to kernel identifier(s) to identify and utilize respective kernel and kernel configuration in performing data transfer with respect to the transaction [section 5.8.2, p. 30; sections 5.6.4-5.6.5, pp. 23-24] was disclosed in “Contactless Specifications for Payment Systems”. A many-to-one mapping of logical to physical registers allowing the reuse and reduction in duplication of physical registers [sections 2.3, 5.1] was disclosed in “Exploiting Value Locality in Physical Register Files”. Similarly, allowing multiple application instances to use the same fixed resource identifier by making the resource identifier virtual; and multiplexing a physical port into multiple virtual ports [paragraphs 19-20 and 41] was disclosed in US PG Pub. 2005/0111364. The prior art(s) of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious the determining of “a virtual kernel identifier based at least in part on the application identifier, the virtual kernel identifier enabling a mapping of the application identifier to a respective kernel” and “the respective kernel to be utilized for performance of the data transfer based at least in part on the virtual kernel identifier and the mapping” as a whole as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 17.
Neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of independent claims 1, 10 and 17 as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199