DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 03/09/2026. Currently, claims 14-31 are pending. Claims 1-13 have been cancelled. Claims 14-17 have been amended. Claims 23-31 are newly added.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-31 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art, single or in combination, teaches the combined limitations:
“receiving a configuration file including a first universal resource locator (URL) identifying an application programming interface (API) for accessing the one or more applications and a second URL identifying a file location of the one or more applications; and
receiving, via the API identified in the first URL, first data characterizing the one or more applications stored in the file location identified in the second URL to be displayed in at least one display frame of the touchscreen display”,
as recited in claim 14.
Claims 15-31 depend directly or indirectly from claim 14, and therefore are patentable over prior art.
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 14-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite an apparatus for accessing and providing content at a display.
Exemplary claim 14 recites in part,
“receiving a configuration file including a first universal resource locator (URL) identifying an application programming interface (API) for accessing the one or more applications and a second URL identifying a file location of the one or more applications; (receiving a configuration file with API URL and application URL)
receiving, via the API identified in the first URL, first data characterizing the one or more applications stored in the file location identified in the second URL to be displayed in at least one display frame of the touchscreen display; (receiving input via the API URL to access one or more applications)
causing a first application to be displayed in the at least one display frame of the touchscreen display; (displaying first application frame)
receiving second data characterizing a modified instance of the first application; and (receiving input associated with first application)
causing the modified instance of the first application to be displayed on the at least one display frame.” (displaying updated application frame)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring configuration data (API’s URL and file location of one or more applications), 2) receiving user input (configuration data) via the API’s URL associated with one or more applications, 2) displaying content associated with the one or more applications, 3) acquiring user input associated with the one or more applications, and 4) displaying an updated content associated with the one or more applications.
The above steps describe the process of accessing and providing content at a display. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The cited claim recites additional elements in the form of a computing device (processor, memory and touchscreen display) for performing the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the claim recites the additional elements of “displaying executable content and receiving user inputs” and “storing one or more applications”. The additional elements describe receiving, storing and displaying data, which amount to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the claim as in MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The computing device (processor, memory and touchscreen display) represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “displaying executable content and receiving user inputs” and “storing one or more applications”, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the claim as in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Dependent claims 15-31 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claims 15-17, 21 and 22 describe the content of the configuration file, as well as accessing/retrieving data in response to an action. Claims 18 and 19 describe event data associated with the accessing/retrieving data. These limitations amount to “insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea” and “well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions”. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 14-22 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claimed invention employs a configuration file including first and second universal resource locators (URLs) data for accessing and retrieving application data associated with one or more applications. Content associated with the application data is displayed to a user within one or more display frames of a touchscreen display. The displayed content is modified in response to user input.
The claim limitations describe the process of accessing and retrieving one or more application data using a first and second URL. The content of the retrieved one or more application data is displayed to a user. Accordingly, the claim limitations describe the process of accessing and providing content at a display. The limitations encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people).
In Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., the court held that the invention is drawn to the idea of "remotely accessing user specific information." The court explained that the claimed invention provides "a system and method that allows a user to access specific documents, files, programs ... from any computer device located in a geographic location." Remotely accessing and retrieving user-specified information is an age-old practice that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet. The court held that the concept of remotely accessing user-specific information is abstract.
Similarly, the claimed invention provides for accessing and retrieving application data from a remote location via an API. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
In addition, the court in Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., held that the recited use of a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve user information evidences nothing more than a "generic computer implementation" of the abstract idea that is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Further, the court explained that the mobile interface relies on the pointers to retrieve user resources and information over the network so that a user may view them. But receiving transmitted data over a network and displaying it to a user merely implicates purely conventional activities that are the "most basic functions of a computer."
Similar to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., the recited configuration file describes first and second URLs for accessing and retrieving application data from a remote location over a network. The content of the application data is transmitted over a network and displayed to a user.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights