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
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/09/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-21 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent claims. Claims 4 and 13 are canceled while claim 21 is newly added. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 10 and 19 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 10 and 19 similarly recite “an application control method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising: determining, based on a location detected by a positioning apparatus of the electronic device, that a usage region of a target application on the electronic device is switched from a first region to a second region, wherein a current version of the target application is a first version that matches the first region; obtaining, from a server, first data that includes an installation package of a second version of the target application, wherein the second version is different from the first version and matches the second region, and the second version and the first version have different application functions; and changing the version of the target application from the first version to the second version based on the first data that includes the installation package of the second version of the target application”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 10 and 19 of “determining, based on a location detected by a positioning apparatus of the electronic device, that a usage region of a target application on the electronic device is switched from a first region to a second region, wherein a current version of the target application is a first version that matches the first region” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that a usage region of a target application on the electronic device is switched from a first region to a second region, wherein a current version of the target application is a first version that matches the first region with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 10 and 19 recite additional elements such as “obtaining, from a server, first data that includes an installation package of a second version of the target application, wherein the second version is different from the first version and matches the second region, and the second version and the first version have different application functions”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 10 and 19 recite additional elements such as “changing the version of the target application from the first version to the second version based on the first data that includes the installation package of the second version of the target application”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “an application control system, comprising a server and an electronic device”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “the server is configured to provide the first data to the electronic device”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 2 recites additional elements such as “sending a region identifier of the second region to a server”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3, 18 and 20 recite additional elements such as “the first data comprises a first identifier of the target application, the first identifier is the same as a second identifier of the target application included in second data, and the second data is data required for obtaining the first version of the target application”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 5 recites additional elements such as “sending a data obtaining request to the server, wherein the data obtaining request is used to request to obtain the first data; and receiving the first data sent by the server”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6, 14 and 21 recite additional elements such as “uninstalling the target application of the first version and replacing the target application of the first version with the target application of the second version; or upgrading the first version to the second version”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 7 and 15 of “determining that a target function is in an on state, wherein the target function is a function of automatically updating the target application when the usage region of the target application changes” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that a usage region of a target application on the electronic device is switched from a first region to a second region, wherein a current version of the target application is a first version that matches the first region with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 8 and 16 recite additional elements such as “the usage region comprises one or more of the following: a city of a country, a country or region in the world, or another preset region”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 9 and 17 recite additional elements such as “the target application comprises at least one of an installation application or a quick application”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 11 recites additional elements such as “before obtaining the first data, send a region identifier of the second region to the server; and the server is further configured to send the first data to the electronic device in response to the obtained region identifier of the second region”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 12 recites additional elements such as “before obtaining the first data, send a data obtaining request to the server, wherein the data obtaining request comprises a region identifier of the second region, and the data obtaining request is used to request to obtain the first data; and the server is further configured to send the first data to the electronic device in response to the obtained data obtaining request”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 20-21 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 20-21 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US Patent 10491603), in view of Bruner (US PGPub 20070118507).
As per Claim 1, Robinson teaches of an application control method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising: determining, based on a location detected by a positioning apparatus of the electronic device, that a usage region of a target application on the electronic device is switched from a first region to a second region, (Col 5, lines 33-45, (An example provided) and Col 24, lines 37-47, “When more than one version of a component or an application are installed on a computing device, then dynamically choosing which one of the component or application to use depending on the determined geographic context (or alternatively advising a user to launch the other component or application version). In one example, the application developer (or other computing device that is controlling a substitution) can automatically switch to the other component or application if it is more appropriate or complies with respect to the current geographic context.” Col 21, lines 4-9, In FIG. 5, the position identification unit 225 is used to identify a geographic location. The position identification unit 225 may include a satellite positioning system receiver, such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, to automatically identify the current position of the computing device. Col 26, lines 4-9, In one embodiment, mobile device 2201 determines that it has changed locations to a new territory. For example, the definition of a new territory can be predetermined and stored in a table of data in memory 2212. In response to determining the change of location, mobile device 2201 sends a request to monitoring server 150. Col 9, lines 49-52, In various examples, the location can include a country, a state, a building, physical premises associated with an organization, a network, etc.)
wherein a current version of the target application is a first version that matches the first region; (Col 5, lines 52-60, In one embodiment, depending on the location of a device (e.g., the device's geographic location), an application or other software component on the device is dynamically substituted or modified to be compliant with local regulatory requirements (e.g., requirements regarding cryptography and/or privacy, etc.). In one example, a first security component of the application is switched for a second security component using weaker encryption. Col 24, lines 47-54, In one embodiment, monitoring server 150 determines the component or application that is most appropriate and sends a communication to service provider 170 or another computing device indicating this choice. The service provider 170 or other computing device, such as a developer server, causes the switching to the other component or application on mobile device 149.)
obtaining first data that is used to change the first version of the target application to a second version, (Col 6, lines 12-18, For example, substitute the encryption and decryption module(s) [first data used for updating the application from 1st version to 2nd version as in col 8, line 61-67] on the device. These substitute modules may have been pre-programmed and already be resident on the device, or can be received from a network in response to determining the new condition or situation (e.g., a violation by the device when operating in a new context) [such as changing of a geographical location].)
wherein the second version is a version that is of the target application and that matches the second region; and (Col 6, lines 49-55, “For example, if a first user is using application A on her mobile device in country A and the security policy associated with country A does not permit the encryption level at which application A is operating, then a component on application A can be replaced to meet the country A's [second country] legal encryption level.” Thus, the application A is updated with a new component to become a new version [second version], which now matches the requirement for the second country’s security policy.)
changing the version of the target application from the first version to the second version based on the first data. (Col 24, lines 33-42, When more than one version of a component [first data used for updating from 1st to 2nd version] or an application are installed on a computing device, then dynamically choosing which one of the component or application to use depending on the determined geographic context (or alternatively advising a user to launch the other component or application version).)
Robinson does not specifically teach, however Bruner teaches of obtaining, from a server first data that includes an installation package of a second version of the target application, wherein the second version is different from the first version and the second version and the first version have different application functions; the first data that includes the installation package of the second version of the target application (Par 29, The software configuration update package is constructed from a collection of software package update files, or software updates. Each of the software package update files comprises one of a version update, a version upgrade, or a new file for a plurality of related programs, configuration files, and other related data objects. Examples of version updates include, but are not limited to repairs, packages, bug fixes, security fixes and service packs. The version update may involve adding new features [functions]. Par 30, Provisioning the software configuration update package can include providing instructions for installing the software configuration update package. The server 102 may also send a new list of versions of the software packages that reflects the changes made by the software configuration update package to the wireless device 104. For example, the finalizing unit 210 of the server 102 may send a new list of versions of the software packages to the wireless device 104. Par 16, In some embodiments, the list of software updates for the wireless device includes at least one instance of two updates that each alter the same file in the software package. In other words, in these embodiments, there is at least one file that is modified by two updates of the list of updates, but is modified only once by the software update configuration package. Par 27, The storage unit 302 contains a list of current software package (and/or program) versions 312 that can be retrieved and updated by the server 102.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add obtaining, from a server first data that includes an installation package of a second version of the target application, wherein the second version is different from the first version and the second version and the first version have different application functions; the first data that includes the installation package of the second version of the target application, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Bruner, into that of Robinson because this modification can help update the application on the mobile device with an updated and different function than the original application from the software package transmitted from a server.
As per Claim 2, Robinson further teaches of the method of claim 1, before the obtaining first data, the method further comprising: sending a region identifier of the second region to a server. (Col 9, lines 49-67, In various examples, the location can include a country, a state, a building, physical premises associated with an organization, a network, etc. After determining the context in which, for example, mobile device 149 is operating, monitoring server 150 determines one or more rules 116 associated with the context. For example, monitoring server 150 determines a geographic location of mobile device 149. This location is used to determine rules 116 that are applicable to operation of mobile device 149 for that determined location.)
As per Claim 3, Robinson further teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a first identifier of the target application, the first identifier is the same as a second identifier of the target application included in second data, and the second data is data required for obtaining the first version of the target application. (Col 8, line 61-Col 9, line 4, Applications that encrypt data can be identified, along with a level of encryption that is used by each application. This identification and corresponding level is stored for each application. This information can also be updated when a new application is installed, and/or when an application update is applied. For example, at a later time, this stored information can be used to determine which of the installed applications are affected by one or more security policies that currently apply (e.g., a security policy that applies for the current device location).)
As per Claim 7, Robinson further teaches of the method of claim 1, before the changing the version of the target application from the first version to the second version, the method further comprising: determining that a target function is in an on state, wherein the target function is a function of automatically updating the target application when the usage region of the target application changes. (Col 24, lines 37-54, When more than one version of a component or an application are installed on a computing device, then dynamically choosing which one of the component or application to use depending on the determined geographic context (or alternatively advising a user to launch the other component or application version). In one example, the application developer (or other computing device that is controlling a substitution) can automatically switch to the other component or application if it is more appropriate or complies with respect to the current geographic context. In one embodiment, monitoring server 150 determines the component or application that is most appropriate and sends a communication to service provider 170 or another computing device indicating this choice. The service provider 170 or other computing device, such as a developer server, causes the switching to the other component or application on mobile device 149.)
As per Claim 8, Robinson further teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the usage region comprises one or more of the following: a city of a country, a country or region in the world, or another preset region. (Col 22, lines 23-27, In one embodiment, the first software component is selected from a plurality of software components on the computing device, the context includes a geographic location, and the first software component is selected based on the geographic location. Col 22, lines 49-52, In various examples, the location can include a country, a state, a building, physical premises associated with an organization, a network, etc.)
As per Claim 9. Robinson further teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the target application comprises at least one of an installation application or a quick application. (Col 13, lines 4-9, In one embodiment, access to the service from service provider 170 requires that a software component is installed on mobile device 149. In response to determining that the software component is not installed, the communication is sent to the mobile device requesting installation of the software component.)
Re Claim 10, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 also recites the following limitation, not recited by the claim 1 specifically, However Robinson further teaches of an application control system, comprising a server and an electronic device, (Col 7, lines 50-54, Specifically, mobile device 149 [electronic device] may download a new application 1013 from application marketplace 123, service provider 170, or a developer server (not shown). In one embodiment, an application obtained from the developer server is signed using a signing certificate.)
the server is configured to provide the first data to the electronic device. (Col 10, lines 30-36, For example, component 106 on application 1013 can be substituted for a new component. The new component can be sent from monitoring server 150 to mobile device 149, or may already be present on mobile device 149. In one embodiment, the new component can be sent from another computing device, such as service provider 170, or from a developer server.)
As per Claim 11, Robinson further teaches of the system of claim 10, wherein the electronic device is further configured to: before obtaining the first data, send a region identifier of the second region to the server; and the server is further configured to send the first data to the electronic device in response to the obtained region identifier of the second region. (Col 9, line 61, After determining the context in which, for example, mobile device 149 is operating, monitoring server 150 determines one or more rules 116 associated with the context. For example, monitoring server 150 determines a geographic location of mobile device 149. This location is used to determine rules 116 that are applicable to operation of mobile device 149 for that determined location. Col 10, lines, 28-36, In one embodiment, the actions performed by monitoring server 150 include modifying or substitute a component of software on mobile device 149. For example, component 106 on application 1013 can be substituted for a new component. The new component can be sent from monitoring server 150 to mobile device 149, or may already be present on mobile device 149. In one embodiment, the new component can be sent from another computing device, such as service provider 170, or from a developer server.)
Re Claim 15, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Re Claim 16, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
Re Claim 17, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 9. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9.
Re Claim 18, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 19, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 20, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
7. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US Patent 10491603), in view of Bruner (US PGPub 20070118507), and further in view of Nguyen (US PGPub 20050273403).
As per Claim 5, neither Robinson nor Bruner specifically teaches, however Nguyen teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining first data comprises: sending a data obtaining request to the server, wherein the data obtaining request is used to request to obtain the first data; and receiving the first data sent by the server. (Par 30, In accordance with the present invention, the update data is capable of being transmitted from the updated device 110, the server 104, the user device 106, or any other device advantageously connected to the network 102 and capable of communicating update data to the document processing devices 108-114. In the preferred embodiment, the request is received by the updated device 110, which then transmits the updated department codes to the remaining devices 108, 112-114. In one embodiment, the request is received by the entity which originally updated the device 110, for example the server 104. Continuing with this example, the server 104 receives the update request and transmits the update data to remaining devices 108, 112-114, without requiring the system administrator or authorized user to interact with the update process.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sending a data obtaining request to the server, wherein the data obtaining request is used to request to obtain the first data; and receiving the first data sent by the server, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Nguyen, into that of Wang and Deck because this modification can help configure the user device to use the appropriate version of the application to maximize the user experience by requesting and receiving the update data from the server.
As per Claim 12, Robinson teaches of the system of claim 10, wherein the electronic device is further configured to: wherein the data obtaining request comprises a region identifier of the second region, (Col 9, line 61, After determining the context in which, for example, mobile device 149 is operating, monitoring server 150 determines one or more rules 116 associated with the context. For example, monitoring server 150 determines a geographic location of mobile device 149. This location is used to determine rules 116 that are applicable to operation of mobile device 149 for that determined location. Col 10, lines, 28-36, In one embodiment, the actions performed by monitoring server 150 include modifying or substitute a component of software on mobile device 149. For example, component 106 on application 1013 can be substituted for a new component. The new component can be sent from monitoring server 150 to mobile device 149, or may already be present on mobile device 149. In one embodiment, the new component can be sent from another computing device, such as service provider 170, or from a developer server.)
Neither Robinson nor Bruner specifically teaches, however Nguyen teaches of before obtaining the first data, send a data obtaining request to the server, and the data obtaining request is used to request to obtain the first data; and the server is further configured to send the first data to the electronic device in response to the obtained data obtaining request. (Par 30, In accordance with the present invention, the update data is capable of being transmitted from the updated device 110, the server 104, the user device 106, or any other device advantageously connected to the network 102 and capable of communicating update data to the document processing devices 108-114. In the preferred embodiment, the request is received by the updated device 110, which then transmits the updated department codes to the remaining devices 108, 112-114. In one embodiment, the request is received by the entity which originally updated the device 110, for example the server 104. Continuing with this example, the server 104 receives the update request and transmits the update data to remaining devices 108, 112-114, without requiring the system administrator or authorized user to interact with the update process.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add before obtaining the first data, send a data obtaining request to the server, and the data obtaining request is used to request to obtain the first data; and the server is further configured to send the first data to the electronic device in response to the obtained data obtaining request, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Nguyen, into that of Robinson and Bruner because this modification can help configure the user device to use the appropriate version of the application to maximize the user experience by requesting and receiving the update data from the server.
8. Claims 6, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US Patent 10491603), in view of Bruner (US PGPub 20070118507), and further in view of Ning (US Patent 10241772).
As per Claim 6, neither Robinson nor Bruner specifically teaches, however Ning teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the changing the version of the target application from the first version to the second version comprises: uninstalling the target application of the first version and replacing the target application of the first version with the target application of the second version. (Col 17, lines 36-46, For example, a group of users may cause the respective remote computing devices 118 to install the particular application. At least some of the users may cause the respective remote computing devices 118 to uninstall the particular application and install a second, alternate application as a substitute for the first application. As a result, in some examples, application similarity module 230 may store, to application usage data stores 260B, a count of the number of times the group of remote computing devices 118 uninstalled the particular application and installed the alternate application.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add uninstalling the target application of the first version and replacing the target application of the first version with the target application of the second version, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Ning, into that of Robinson and Bruner because this modification can help install new application for the user device by uninstalling the older version of the application in order to update the application completely.
Re Claim 14, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Re Claim 21, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments with respect to 101 Abstract Idea rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the first argument that the mental process requires technological operation such as determining region based on a location detected by a positioning apparatus of the electronic device, the limitation subject to a mental process requiring a general-purpose computer may still recite a mental process according to the following MPEP. Thus, the examiner maintains the 101 Abstract Idea rejection over the argument.
2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022]
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”).
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 and 19 and their dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights