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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Lymberopoulos and Stanley-Marbell do not teach the amended limitation “determine, based on a historical record of times at which the mobile device exits a standby mode, a predetermined time before a user is expected to look at a display of the mobile device; transmit, to a content provider server, the one or more search queries at the predetermined time”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Lymberopoulos teaches “determine, based on a historical record of times
And the limitation “transmit, to a content provider server, the one or more search queries at the predetermined time” in paragraph ([0047, a user who regularly runs an application that gets the weather forecast every morning when he or she wakes up is able to have the application automatically launched and/or the content for that application pre-fetched based upon previous access patterns (and a triggering event, which may be the time of day or powering up the device)] which teaches pre-fetching content based on the previous access (predetermined time) time.
Deutsch teaches search queries in [0153, At step 208, a list is obtained of search request objects from a data set. These are searches and associated criteria input by the user]).
Stanley-Marbell teaches the limitation “determine, based on a historical record of times at which the mobile device exits a standby mode”,
Therefore, Deutsch, Lymberopoulos and Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the above cited limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the mobile device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 depends on claim 22 and is likewise rejected.
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 1-5, 7-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons:
Claims 1, 22:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a "device", “method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“determine, based on a historical record of times at which the mobile device exits a standby mode, a predetermined time before a user is expected to look at a display of the mobile device” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a predetermined time before a user is expected to look at a display of the mobile device based on a historical record of times at which a mobile device exits a standby mode by evaluation and observation/judgement of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a mobile device for retrieving results to pre-programmed search queries, the mobile device being arranged to”, “a computer-implemented method of retrieving results to pre- programmed search queries” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“generate, based on the programming commands, one or more search queries” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“receive one or more programming commands” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“transmit, to a content provider server, the one or more search queries at the predetermined time” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“retrieve, by way of the one or more search queries, one or more corresponding search results from the content provider server” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“wherein the retrieval of the one or more search results is performed asynchronously to receiving the programming commands to generate the one or more search queries” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“display customized content to a user based on the retrieved search results” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“generate, based on the programming commands, one or more search queries” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)"
-“receive one or more programming commands” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)"
-“transmit, to a content provider server, the one or more search queries at the predetermined time” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“retrieve, by way of the one or more search queries, one or more corresponding search results from the content provider server” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
-“wherein the retrieval of the one or more search results is performed asynchronously to receiving the programming commands to generate the one or more search queries” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“display customized content to a user based on the retrieved search results” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9" for Berkheimer support of being well-understood, routine, and conventional computer outputting of data.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the mobile device is arranged to retrieve raw data associated with the one or more search queries, when retrieving the one or more search results, and is arranged to process the retrieved one or more search results based on the retrieved raw data associated with the one or more search results to obtain the customized content to be displayed” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the mobile device is arranged to retrieve raw data associated with the one or more search queries, when retrieving the one or more search results, and is arranged to process the retrieved one or more search results based on the retrieved raw data associated with the one or more search results to obtain the customized content to be displayed” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein, based on updates received from the content provider server of an availability of a content retrieved as raw data, one or more features of the content to which the one or more search queries are directed are computed locally on the mobile device” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein, based on updates received from the content provider server of an availability of a content retrieved as raw data, one or more features of the content to which the one or more search queries are directed are computed locally on the mobile device” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a search agent is installed on the mobile device, wherein the search agent is to repeatedly issue the one or more search queries as a background process, which are pre-programmed according to the programming commands received, wherein user preferences are set according to the programming commands received and stored on the mobile device, such that search queries can be repeatedly generated based on these user preferences” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a search agent is installed on the mobile device, wherein the search agent is to repeatedly issue the one or more search queries as a background process, which are pre-programmed according to the programming commands received, wherein user preferences are set according to the programming commands received and stored on the mobile device, such that search queries can be repeatedly generated based on these user preferences” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the content is displayed via a widget on the mobile device which is programmed to receive the one or more search results from a content provider server” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the content is displayed via a widget on the mobile device which is programmed to receive the one or more search results from a content provider server” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the historical record is stored at the mobile device” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the historical record is stored at the mobile device” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a content provider application is to run the widget to display the one or more search results, wherein the content provider application is to link code from a library of the search agent” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a content provider application is to run the widget to display the one or more search results, wherein the content provider application is to link code from a library of the search agent” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device, wherein the content provider application is to link code from a library of the search agent, wherein the code library of the search agent is used to run the widget” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device, wherein the content provider application is to link code from a library of the search agent, wherein the code library of the search agent is used to run the widget” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device, wherein the content provider application is to communicate with an application providing the search agent, wherein the application providing the search agent is to also provide the widget” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device, wherein the content provider application is to communicate with an application providing the search agent, wherein the application providing the search agent is to also provide the widget” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device, wherein the content provider application and the application providing the search engine are to communicate with each other via a local network interface of the mobile device, using a loopback network address of the mobile device” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device, wherein the content provider application is to communicate with an application providing the search agent, wherein the application providing the search agent is to also provide the widget” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the search agent running on the mobile device is to issue the pre-programmed search queries for updating values displayed by the widget during charging periods of the mobile device and/or when the mobile device has established a WiFi connection” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the search agent running on the mobile device is to issue the pre-programmed search queries for updating values displayed by the widget during charging periods of the mobile device and/or when the mobile device has established a WiFi connection” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the pre-programmed search queries are directed to products and/or services and wherein natural language processing is used to listen to user input to predict queries directed to products and/or services in order to pre-program the search queries according to the prediction for the travel related queries” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the pre-programmed search queries are directed to products and/or services and wherein natural language processing is used to listen to user input to predict queries directed to products and/or services in order to pre-program the search queries according to the prediction for the travel related queries” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein one widget is provided for a plurality of content provider applications and corresponding content provider servers or wherein one widget is provided for one content provider application” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein one widget is provided for a plurality of content provider applications and corresponding content provider servers or wherein one widget is provided for one content provider application” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the one or more search queries are directed to products and/or services and the user preferences include fixed and recurring dates, time intervals as well as complex itineraries” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the one or more search queries are directed to products and/or services and the user preferences include fixed and recurring dates, time intervals as well as complex itineraries” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the search queries are related to products and/or services and are directed to at least one of the following: origin, destination, price, travel provider, departure time, arrival time, and” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“wherein the widget displays at least one of the following: origin, destination, price, travel provider, departure time, arrival time” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the search queries are related to products and/or services and are directed to at least one of the following: origin, destination, price, travel provider, departure time, arrival time, and” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“wherein the widget displays at least one of the following: origin, destination, price, travel provider, departure time, arrival time” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a price is the feature computed locally as a background process, wherein the calculation of the price is based on fares stored locally on the mobile device which are updated based on updates of the availability of a travel service, and wherein a user of the mobile device is alerted when new results regarding the price are available” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a price is the feature computed locally as a background process, wherein the calculation of the price is based on fares stored locally on the mobile device which are updated based on updates of the availability of a travel service, and wherein a user of the mobile device is alerted when new results regarding the price are available” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a local tokenization map is stored on the mobile device and the mobile device is to receive a request for tokenized sensitive data, wherein the sensitive data is tokenized according to the tokenization map stored on the mobile device, and wherein the mobile device is to send the tokenized data either directly or via a search server to the content provider server” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a local tokenization map is stored on the mobile device and the mobile device is to receive a request for tokenized sensitive data, wherein the sensitive data is tokenized according to the tokenization map stored on the mobile device, and wherein the mobile device is to send the tokenized data either directly or via a search server to the content provider server” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the local tokenization map is stored on the mobile device and the mobile device is to receive a detokenization request for providing sensitive data, wherein the mobile device is to provide the sensitive data that has been detokenized using the local tokenization map on the mobile device to the content provider server in an encrypted form, wherein the mobile device is to send the encrypted sensitive data to the content provider server either directly or via a search server, and wherein the content provider server is to decrypt and to use the detokenized sensitive data and to delete the sensitive data immediately after usage” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the local tokenization map is stored on the mobile device and the mobile device is to receive a detokenization request for providing sensitive data, wherein the mobile device is to provide the sensitive data that has been detokenized using the local tokenization map on the mobile device to the content provider server in an encrypted form, wherein the mobile device is to send the encrypted sensitive data to the content provider server either directly or via a search server, and wherein the content provider server is to decrypt and to use the detokenized sensitive data and to delete the sensitive data immediately after usage” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a local tokenization map and an application specific detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is to receive tokenized sensitive data from a content provider server via a search server, wherein the mobile device is to use the application specific detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized sensitive data and to use the detokenized, i.e. the sensitive data in clear, in application dedicated to use the sensitive data” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a local tokenization map and an application specific detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is to receive tokenized sensitive data from a content provider server via a search server, wherein the mobile device is to use the application specific detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized sensitive data and to use the detokenized, i.e. the sensitive data in clear, in application dedicated to use the sensitive data” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 21:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a local tokenization map and a form-filling detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is to receive a form to be filled in along with tokenized data directly from a content provider server along with a request to detokenize the tokenized data and to use the detokenized data to fill in the form, wherein the mobile device is to use the form- filling detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized data and to fill in the form using the detokenized data and to thereafter send the form to an intended recipient” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a local tokenization map and a form-filling detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is to receive a form to be filled in along with tokenized data directly from a content provider server along with a request to detokenize the tokenized data and to use the detokenized data to fill in the form, wherein the mobile device is to use the form- filling detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized data and to fill in the form using the detokenized data and to thereafter send the form to an intended recipient” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 23:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein a local tokenization map and a form-filling detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is to receive a form to be filled in along with tokenized data directly from a content provider server along with a request to detokenize the tokenized data and to use the detokenized data to fill in the form, wherein the mobile device is to use the form- filling detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized data and to fill in the form using the detokenized data and to thereafter send the form to an intended recipient” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
-“wherein a local tokenization map and a form-filling detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is to receive a form to be filled in along with tokenized data directly from a content provider server along with a request to detokenize the tokenized data and to use the detokenized data to fill in the form, wherein the mobile device is to use the form- filling detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized data and to fill in the form using the detokenized data and to thereafter send the form to an intended recipient” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033).
With respect to claim 1, Deutsch teaches a mobile device for retrieving results to pre-programmed search queries, the mobile device being arranged to ([0010, mobile devices may have batteries of limited capacity and life, may have limited size displays, and may have limited computing memory and power.], [0153, At step 208, a list is obtained of search request objects from a data set], the mobile device retrieves stored queries (pre-programed search queries)):
one or more search queries (fig. 2A, [0153, At step 208, a list is obtained of search request objects from a data set. These are searches and associated criteria input by the user], [0167] k. Reputation or computed safety rating of seller [0168] l. Personal categories (male, female, platonic, etc.) [0169] m. Boolean search algebra (e.g. match any, match all, etc.) [0170] 4. Search category (e.g. for sale, housing, services, etc.) [0171] 5. Auto search enabled flag (true if the search should be run in the background, false otherwise) [0172] 6. Last hit time (calendar time of the most recent match from the previous search)], the stored search requests are received from users and include users search preferences, search criteria, flags, intervals etc, which are search queries);
retrieve, by way of the one or more search queries, one or more corresponding search results from a content provider server ([0012, Selector 1210, as described above, notifies the user that new search results are available], [0021, The search keyword selector option 1340 allows the user to enter a keyword to narrow search results to those posted items whose descriptions contain the keyword], [0176, The error count is the number of failed attempts to contact the server data feed since the last successful connection. This is used in the process retry logic at step 240], the search results are retrieved from the server (content provider sever)), wherein the retrieval of the one or more search results is performed asynchronously
display customized content to a user based on the retrieved search results ([0043, Referring to FIG. 11, a sample device display shows how, in one embodiment, the app may display search results, gathered from a posting site, to the user], fig. 2A, [0153, At step 208, a list is obtained of search request objects from a data set. These are searches and associated criteria input by the user], [0167] k. Reputation or computed safety rating of seller [0168] l. Personal categories (male, female, platonic, etc.) [0169] m. Boolean search algebra (e.g. match any, match all, etc.)], the customized search results are displayed because the search queries contain customized request i.e. categories/rating/Boolean search algebra etc.).
Deutsch does not explicitly teach receive one or more programming commands, generate, based on the programming commands, one or more search queries; wherein the retrieval of the one or more search results is performed to receiving the programming commands to generate the one or more search queries; determine, based on a historical record of times at which the mobile device exits a standby mode, a predetermined time before a user is expected to look at a display of the mobile device; transmit, to a content provider server, the one or more search queries at the predetermined time.
However, Tanide teaches receive one or more programming commands ([0060, in FIG. 8 and sends the detected database access command to a database-query-command generation program], the database command (program command) is received) generate, based on the programming commands, one or more search queries; wherein the retrieval of the one or more search results is performed to receiving the programming commands to generate the one or more search queries ([0035, he database-query-command generation program is a program that, when a database access command is included in the user program 111 of the user-program storage unit 11, causes the computation unit 15 to generate a database query command that is described in a database query], the search queries are generated from the database programming command to retrieve search resutls). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Tanide i.e. programming commands and generating query based on the commands into Deutsch to have a system which will have programming commands and the queries are generated based on the programming commands. Deutsch/Tanide are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Tanide into the system of Deutsch to have programing commands and generating queries based on programming commands to have an efficient system. The motivation would be to increase flexibility of the search system and also to make the system faster (Tanide, [0009, when data is read from a database in a programmable controller, it is possible to reduce the number of reading steps from the database as compared to conventional techniques)]).
Deutsch and Tanide do not explicitly teach determine, based on a historical record of times at which the mobile device exits a standby mode, a predetermined time before a user is expected to look at a display of the mobile device; transmit, to a content provider server, the one or more search queries at the predetermined time.
However, Lymberopoulos teaches determine, based on a historical record of times a predetermined time before a user is expected to look at a display of the mobile device ([0028, Another pattern is that user accesses are often periodic and happen at given (and typically relatively short) time windows, e.g., every thirty minutes, when users wake up, during an afternoon break, and/or the like], [0047, a user who regularly runs an application that gets the weather forecast every morning when he or she wakes up is able to have the application automatically launched and/or the content for that application pre-fetched based upon previous access patterns (and a triggering event, which may be the time of day or powering up the device)], the usage pattern of a user is determined from the historical record when the user is expected to look at the display i.e. in the morning the user wakes up and look at the display);
transmit, to a content provider server, the one or more search queries at the predetermined time ([0047, a user who regularly runs an application that gets the weather forecast every morning when he or she wakes up is able to have the application automatically launched and/or the content for that application pre-fetched based upon previous access patterns (and a triggering event, which may be the time of day or powering up the device)], pre-fetching content based on the previous access (predetermined time) time, search queries is taught by Deutsch in [0153]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Lymberopoulos i.e. determining a time before the user is expected to look at the content based on the historical usage into Deutsch/Tanide to have a system which will have process data before the user is expected to look at the data. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Lymberopoulos into the system of Deutsch/Tanide to make the system more efficient to process the data/results before the user is expected to look at the data. The motivation would be to reduce user-perceived latency and improve responsiveness of the mobile device when the user accesses the display (Lymberopoulos, [0030, such as whether a user is at home or in the office (e.g., as determined by GPS coordinates or cell tower positioning) may also improve prediction accuracy).
Deutsch, Tanide and Lymberopoulos do not explicitly teach determine, based on a historical record of times at which the mobile device exits a standby mode,
However, Stanley-Marbell teaches determine, based on a historical record of times at which the mobile device exits a standby mode,
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Stanley-Marbell i.e. determining time of mobile device exiting a standby mode into Deutsch/Tanide/Lymberopoulos to have a system which will have determine exiting standby mode time of mobile devices. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Stanley-Marbell into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos to make the system more robust. The motivation would be to improve the timing of pre-fetching operations and increase likelihood that requested content is available when the user accesses the device (Stanley-Marbell, [0013, Particular implementations provide at least the following advantages: Battery power can be conserved by dynamically adjusting components of the mobile device in response to detected events]).
With respect to claim 2, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 1, Deutsch further teaches wherein the mobile device is arranged to retrieve data associated with the one or more search queries ([0012, Selector 1210, as described above, notifies the user that new search results are available], [0021, The search keyword selector option 1340 allows the user to enter a keyword to narrow search results to those posted items whose descriptions contain the keyword], the retrieving results based on the search queries), when retrieving the one or more search results, and is arranged to process the retrieved one or more search results based on the retrieved data associated with the one or more search results to obtain the customized content to be displayed ([0021, The search keyword selector option 1340 allows the user to enter a keyword to narrow search results to those posted items whose descriptions contain the keyword], [0028, Search preferences selector 1394 directs the user to one or more screens (not shown) that allow the user to display and edit various search parameters such as, in some embodiments], [0068, The content parsing logic engine passes the modified map 1440 to the query engine 1470 which in turn stores these results in data store 1475, if the search is a background search. Otherwise, if the search is a foreground search, these results are displayed to the user], the search results are displayed according to users’ preference (customized results)).
Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos do not explicitly teach raw data.
However, Stanley-Marbell teaches raw data ([0012, The event data can be shared as forecasts, statistics, and/or raw (e.g., unprocessed) event data], processing raw data).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Stanley-Marbell i.e. processing raw data into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos to have a system which will have process raw data to provide the users with search results. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Stanley-Marbell into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos to have raw data to process most relevant search results. The motivation would be to process raw data to process search results with more accuracy and faster to make the system more robust Stanley-Marbell, [0013, Particular implementations provide at least the following advantages: Battery power can be conserved by dynamically adjusting components of the mobile device in response to detected events]).
With respect to claim 3, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 2, Deutsch further teaches wherein, based on updates received from the content provider webserver of an availability of a content retrieved as data, one or more features of the content to which the one or more search queries are directed are computed locally on the mobile device ([0033, Enable or disable visual, audible, or tactile forms of notification of new results], [0044, the user may be notified of new search results by a sound (e.g. a ring tone), a vibration, or a flashing LED, for example. Upon receiving selector 1210, the user may review updated search results], [0185, The user can be notified during background search or when the app is running in the foreground. This can be accomplished by adding a notification selector in the mobile status area, or displaying a notification widget on the user's home screen], the updates are displayed to the user and the queries are computed locally on the mobile device).
Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos do not explicitly teach raw data.
However, Stanley-Marbell teaches raw data ([0012, The event data can be shared as forecasts, statistics, and/or raw (e.g., unprocessed) event data], processing raw data).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Stanley-Marbell i.e. processing raw data into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos to have a system which will have process raw data to provide the users with search results. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Stanley-Marbell into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos to have raw data to process most relevant search results. The motivation would be to process raw data to process search results with more accuracy and faster to make the system more robust Stanley-Marbell, [0013, Particular implementations provide at least the following advantages: Battery power can be conserved by dynamically adjusting components of the mobile device in response to detected events]).
With respect to claim 4, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 1, Deutsch further teaches wherein a search agent is installed on the mobile device, wherein the search agent is to repeatedly issue the one or more search queries as a background process ([0004, the app optionally can run in the background, monitoring the site for newly posted information, and informing a user of a new item. This background search permits the user to respond in a rapid and timely way to an item as it becomes available, thus maximizing the user's chances of obtaining it], [0044, This app permits background searches to be performed at periodic intervals while other app's and functions are running on the device], the app (search agent) repeatedly issue search queries as a background process), which are pre-programmed according to the programming commands received, wherein user preferences are set according to the programming commands received and stored on the mobile device, such that search queries can be repeatedly generated based on these user preferences ([0012, A status indicator 1305 may indicate that the device is performing background searches and show the time interval between each search, or indicate the time of the last search], [0085, Content parsing logic engine 1465 generates a content reference 1420 based on user selected and/or defined preferences (e.g., parameters saved in data store 1475). Then engine 1465 uses reference 1420 in executing a first query on posting site to retrieve markup language content 1425], [0175, The process at step 220 obtains polling time interval, according to user preference, from the data store], the background search is based on the interval and users preference, programming commands is taught by Tanide in para. [0035]).
With respect to claim 5, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 1, Deutsch further teaches wherein the content is displayed via a widget on the mobile device which is programmed to receive the one or more search results from a content provider server ([0092, this notification, in some embodiments, can be a display of a selector in a status area, a sound, a flashing LED, a vibrate alarm, or notification “widget” on the user's home screen], [0185, This can be accomplished by adding a notification selector in the mobile status area, or displaying a notification widget on the user's home screen], the widgets are installed in the device and the widgets displays the search results).
With respect to claim 7, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 1, Deutsch, Tanide, Stanley-Marbell in combination do not explicitly teach wherein the moment at which the user is expected to look at the display is determined based on repeatedly updated user behavior patterns calculated and recorded locally at the mobile device.
However, Lymberopoulos teaches wherein the historical record is stored at the mobile device ([0004, temporal-related feature data associated with the way a user accesses the web content and/or with the way the content itself is updated], [0017, wherein the moment at which the user is expected to look at the display is determined based on repeatedly updated user behavior patterns calculated and recorded locally at the mobile device], the data is stored in the mobile device).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Lymberopoulos i.e. users behavior data and storing into the mobile device into Deutsch/Tanide/ Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will determine users access time based on users access data. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Lymberopoulos into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Stanley-Marbell to make the system more efficient to process the data/resutls before the user is expected to look at the data. The motivation would be to reduce user-perceived latency and improve responsiveness of the mobile device when the user accesses the display (Lymberopoulos, [0030, such as whether a user is at home or in the office (e.g., as determined by GPS coordinates or cell tower positioning) may also improve prediction accuracy).
With respect to claim 12, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 5, Deutsch further teaches wherein the search agent running on the mobile device is to issue the pre-programmed search queries for updating values displayed by the widget ([0033, Enable or disable visual, audible, or tactile forms of notification of new results], [0044, the user may be notified of new search results by a sound (e.g. a ring tone), a vibration, or a flashing LED, for example. Upon receiving selector 1210, the user may review updated search results], updated resutls are displayed to the user by a widget).
Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos do not explicitly teach during charging periods of the mobile device and/or when the mobile device has established a WiFi connection.
However, Stanley-Marbell teaches during charging periods of the mobile device and/or when the mobile device has established a WiFi connection ([0037, Network quality information can indicate the quality of the mobile device's network (e.g., Wi-Fi, cellular, satellite, etc.) connection as detected by mobile device 100 when the event occurred], the mobile device has established WiFi connection before the event occurs).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Stanley-Marbell i.e. establish connection of Wi-Fi during a search into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos to have a system which will have established Wi-Fi connection during executing of a search. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Stanley into the system of Deutsch/Tanide to make the system faster. The motivation would be to make the system more cost efficient, to reduce mobile data usage and also to increase speed (Stanley, [0073, adjust system settings to improve the performance of mobile device 100, improve the user's experience while using mobile device 100 and/or avert future problems with mobile device 100.]).
With respect to claim 14, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 5, Deutsch further teaches wherein one widget is provided for a plurality of content provider applications and corresponding content provider webservers or wherein one widget is provided for one content provider application ([0011, a graphic user interface for the device comprises menu selectors such as icons, tabs, and pull down widgets], [0092, widgets are basic visual building blocks which, combined in an application, hold all the data processed by the application and the available interactions on this data], [0093, display search results via a widget on a pop up window while the user is executing other applications], widgets are provided for applications).
With respect to claim 16, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 5, Deutsch further teaches wherein the search queries are related to products and/or services and are directed to at least one of the following: origin, destination, price, travel provider, departure time, arrival time ([0153, These are searches and associated criteria input by the user], [0157, Prices ranges], search queries related to price), and wherein the widget displays at least one of the following: origin, destination, price, travel provider, departure time, arrival time ([0025, Filter selector option 1380 allows the user to further narrow search results to parameters (in this example minimum price and maximum price) within a range or other specifications], widget displays price of a product).
Claim 22 encompasses the same scope of limitation of claim 1, in additions of computer implemented method (Deutsch, [0005, Instead, the method disclosed herein relies on a combination of web harvesting]). Therefore, claim 22 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 1.
Claim 23 encompasses the same scope of limitation of claim 22, in additions of a computer program product comprising code instructions stored on a computer readable medium to execute the method steps according to claim 22, when said program is executed on a mobile device (Deutsch, [0004, The app preferably runs on a mobile device, such as a mobile (cellular) telephone], [0088, a computer program that is executed by processor(s) 1030 within the apparatus 1000 as a series of computer-executable instructions]). Therefore, claim 23 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 22.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033) and in view of Chawla et al. (US 2014/0052617).
With respect to claim 8, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 5, but do not explicitly teach wherein a content provider application is to run the widget to display the one or more search results, wherein the content provider application is to link code from a library of the search agent.
However, Chawla teaches wherein a content provider application is to run the widget to display the one or more search results, wherein the content provider application is to link code from a library of the search agent ([0207, The script tag may link to the API-Tool platform JavaScript Software Development Kit (SDK) for loading the API-Tool platform JavaScript SDK library into the application or web page], the SDK library code is linked with the applications which includes search applications).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Chawla i.e. linking codes into applications into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will link code from a library. Deutsch/Tanide/Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell/Chawla are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Chawla into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to make the system more reliable. The motivation would be to improve the systems performance, reduce error and also to make the system more secured (Chawla, [0301, and extend the life of API-Tool's underlying infrastructure; this has the added benefit of making the API-Tool more reliable).
With respect to claim 9, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 5, but do not explicitly teach wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device, wherein the content provider application is to link code from a library of the search agent, wherein the code library of the search agent is used to run the widget.
However, Chawla teaches wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device, wherein the content provider application is to link code from a library of the search agent, wherein the code library of the search agent is used to run the widget ([0207, The script tag may link to the API-Tool platform JavaScript Software Development Kit (SDK) for loading the API-Tool platform JavaScript SDK library into the application or web page], [0302, The API-Tool component may transform social application widget checkout requests, and/or the like and use the API-Tool], the SDK library code is linked with the applications which includes search applications and also run widget).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Chawla i.e. linking codes into applications and run widget into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos,/Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will link code from a library and run widget. Deutsch/Tanide/Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell/Chawla are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generate results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Chawla into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell to make the system more reliable. The motivation would be to improve the systems performance, reduce error and also to make the system more secured (Chawla, [0301, and extend the life of API-Tool's underlying infrastructure; this has the added benefit of making the API-Tool more reliable).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033) and in view of Cairns et al. (US 20150200952).
With respect to claim 10, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 5, Deutsch further teaches wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device ([0011, Referring to FIG. 10, a sample device display shows how, in one embodiment, the user may set up a search, via the device, of items available on the posting site. Preferably, a graphic user interface for the device comprises menu selectors such as icons, tabs, and pulldown widgets], content provider application).
Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination do not explicitly teach wherein the content provider application is to communicate with an application providing the search agent, wherein the application providing the search agent is to also provide the widget.
However, Carins teaches wherein the content provider application is to communicate with an application providing the search agent, wherein the application providing the search agent is to also provide the widget ([0026, An example of a third-party system web page that incorporates the first-party embeddable UI is shown in FIG. 2. Web page 200 includes a window 202, which may be a web browser window with multiple UI components, such as a document processing frame 203, a toolbar 204, and widgets 206, 208, and 210. As used herein, a widget refers to a user interface component that performs some particular function], [0035, second, share client 608 communicates with sharing frame 606 through messages 612. Messages 612 may be implemented to safely enable cross-origin communication between two windows or frames across domains, e.g., between the first-party widget and the third-party site], communications between multiple applications and the applications provides widget).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Carins i.e. communications between applications and run widget into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will communicate between applications. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell/Cairns are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Cairns into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell to make the system faster. The motivation would be to make the system more reliable and consistent (Cairns, [0006, a way for first-party user interface components, or widgets, to be securely embedded in third-party applications and to be securely used in the context of these third-party applications]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033) and in view of Harrison et al. (US 2019/0297122).
With respect to claim 11, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 5, Deutsch further teaches wherein a content provider application is run on the mobile device ([0011, Referring to FIG. 10, a sample device display shows how, in one embodiment, the user may set up a search, via the device, of items available on the posting site. Preferably, a graphic user interface for the device comprises menu selectors such as icons, tabs, and pulldown widgets], content provider application).
Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination do not explicitly teach wherein the content provider application and the application providing the search engine are to communicate with each other via a local network interface of the mobile device, using a loopback network address of the mobile device.
However, Harrison teaches wherein the content provider application and the application providing the search engine are to communicate with each other via a local network interface of the mobile device, using a loopback network address of the mobile device ([0144, using a loopback interface to allow the sandboxed application], [0148, the sandboxed application 112 may also use the loopback interface (e.g., a loopback address, 127.0.0.1, a localhost) to access the CID service 1000 of the client device 100 and/or the capture device of the client device 100], the applications communicate by loopback network address of the mobile device).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Harrison i.e. communications between applications via loopback network address of the mobile device into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will communicate between applications via loopback address of the mobile device. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell Harrison are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Harrison into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to make the system more secure. The motivation would be to make the system more faster, safer and private (Harrison, [0224, Thus, the slideshow may be displayed on a secure network of the company through a limited externally facing API. The slideshow application may be used as a trusted intermediary between the secure network and the mobile phone.]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033) and in view of Varshney et al. (US 2022/0157314).
With respect to claim 13, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 5, Deutsch further teaches wherein the pre-programmed search queries are directed to products and/or services (fig. 2A, [0153, At step 208, a list is obtained of search request objects from a data set. These are searches and associated criteria input by the user], the stored queries are pre-programmed search queries).
Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination do not explicitly teach wherein natural language processing is used to listen to user input to predict queries directed to products and/or services in order to pre-program the search queries according to the prediction for the travel related queries.
However, Varshney teaches wherein natural language processing is used to listen to user input to predict queries directed to products and/or services in order to pre-program the search queries according to the prediction for the travel related queries ([0103, f the assistant application determines that a user previously queried the assistant application “How can I get to Mt. Everest base camp?” in a prior user session or a current user session, the assistant application may generate a new predicted query (e.g., “How much would it cost to travel to Mt. Everest base camp?” or “Do I need a visa in order to travel to Mt. Everest base camp?”) to be included in a prompt to re-initiate the conversation with the user. In some embodiments, the assistant application may identify a suitable template from among one or more stored templates of queries, and the new query may be a revised version of the stored template, modified to conform to the currently stored context], the processing of user input which includes natural language query and predicting a travel query).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Varshney i.e. processing users natural language input and predicting travel related queries into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will process natural language input and predict travel queries. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell Varshney are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Varshney into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have predicted travel related queries. The motivation would be to process the query faster and provide faster search results to the users (Varshney, [0003, Such a circumstance is a missed opportunity for the assistant application to utilize stored context data to provide an improved user interface (e.g., by re-initiating a conversation based on context stored before an interruption)]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033) and Sozhan et al. (US 2020/0050975).
With respect to claim 15, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 1, Deutsch further teaches wherein the one or more search queries are directed to products and/or services and the user preferences include fixed dates, and time intervals ([0046, Specifically, contents 1230 may include title of the item, date and time posted, price, description, location, and condition. The most relevant details may include a short summary description and date. By “clicking” on the details, the user may select the item to display a full posting. The user may scroll through multiple postings, if they exist], [0031, Specify a look-back time interval (e.g., do not return items posted before a specified time)], users preference includes fixed dates and time intervals).
Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination do not explicitly teach recurring dates, as well as complex itineraries.
However, Sozhan teaches recurring dates, as well as complex itineraries ([0064, Building space details can also include itinerary information. Itinerary information can include a timeslot 214 of the building space, a date of the timeslot, and/or whether the reservation request is a recurring request, among other itinerary information. For example, a user of the mobile device can specify a time slot 214 to be from the current time (e.g., 9:41 AM) to 11 AM.], itineraries and recurring dates). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Sozhan i.e. recuring dates and itineraries of users preferences into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will have recurring dates and itineraries to find search results according to users preferences. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell/Sozhan are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Sozhan into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have specific users preferences. The motivation would be to find users specific search results faster to make the system more efficient (Sozhan, [0016, can provide a way to increase space utilization in spaces in a building in an efficient manner]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033) and in view of Negahban et al. (US 11,410,468).
With respect to claim 17, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 3, Deutsch further teaches the feature computed locally as a background process ([0066, a method of performing a background search of a community/classified posting service], [0086, The content parsing logic engine passes the modified map 1440 to the query engine 1470 which in turn stores these results in data store 1475, if the search is a background search], the locally computed attributes as part of the background process), and wherein a user of the mobile device is alerted when new results regarding the are available ([0033, Enable or disable visual, audible, or tactile forms of notification of new results], [0153, [0157] a. Prices ranges [0158] b. Age limits [0159] c. Square footage [0160] d. Number of bedrooms and bathrooms [0161] e. Property type (e.g. single-family home, condo, rental, etc.) [0162] f. Property listing categories (Open house, new listing, reduced price, foreclosure etc.)], the users mobile devices are alerted when new results are retrieved).
Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination do not explicitly teach wherein a price is the feature computed locally; wherein the calculation of the price is based on fares stored locally on the mobile device which are updated based on updates of the availability of a travel service, and wherein a user of the mobile device is alerted when new results regarding the price are available.
However, Negahban teaches wherein a price is the feature computed locally ([col. 15, lines 18-25, “receive a rider fare offer for an identified ride, receive, from the mobile app 300 of at least one mobile meter device 150, a driver fare offer for the identified ride. The administrative component 200 may automatically reject the driver fare offer or the rider fare offer if it is not between the maximum fare amount and the minimum fare amount”], the price is computed locally in the mobile device); wherein the calculation of the price is based on fares stored locally on the mobile device which are updated based on updates of the availability of a travel service ([col. 15, lines 18-25, “receive a rider fare offer for an identified ride, receive, from the mobile app 300 of at least one mobile meter device 150, a driver fare offer for the identified ride. The administrative component 200 may automatically reject the driver fare offer or the rider fare offer if it is not between the maximum fare amount and the minimum fare amount”], the price is computed locally in the mobile device], the price is adjusted based on the fare stored in the mobile device), and wherein a user of the mobile device is alerted when new results regarding the price are available (col. 6, lines 12-15, [“The administrative component may send to the mobile meter app 300 updated rate information related to the monitored traffic or events”], the users are notified when new prices are available).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Negahban i.e. computing price and updating price locally in the mobile device and notifying users with new price into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will produce price adjustments and notifying the users with new prices. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell /Negahban are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporating functionalities of Negahban into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell to have background updates and alerts. The motivation would to improve robustness and reliability of a system (Negahban, [col. 2, lines 65-67, “increasing the ease of matching passengers with drivers, vehicles and needs, and improving logistics”]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033) and in view of Mattson et al. (US 2013/0212024).
With respect to claim 18, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein a local tokenization map is stored on the mobile device and the mobile device is to receive a request for tokenized sensitive data, wherein the sensitive data is tokenized according to the tokenization map stored on the mobile device, and wherein the mobile device is to send the tokenized data either directly or via a search server to the content provider server.
However, Mattson teaches wherein a local tokenization map is stored on the mobile device and the mobile device is to receive a request for tokenized sensitive data (fig. 2, 3, [0036, The mobile device 102, the payment terminal 104, the central communication system 114, and the central payment system 106 each include a token server (token server 202A, 202B, 202C, and 202D, respectively; "token servers 202" collectively) and a token tables storage module (204A, 204B, 204C, and 204D, respectively; "token tables storage modules 204" collectively). Each token table storage module 204 stores token tables for use in tokenization], [0059, FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a process for the tokenization of data in a mobile environment, according to one embodiment. A mobile device identifies 300 communication data to be communicated], the token table is stored in the mobile device and tokenization map is stored in the tables, the mobile device receives request for tokenization of sensitive data), wherein the sensitive data is tokenized according to the tokenization map stored on the mobile device, and wherein the mobile device is to send the tokenized data either directly or via a search server to the content provider server (fig. 2, 3, [0023, The security of tokenization can be further increased through the use of initialization vectors ("IVs"). An IV is a string of data used to modify sensitive data prior to tokenizing the sensitive data. Example sensitive data modification operations include performing linear or modulus addition on the IV and the sensitive data, performing logical operations on the sensitive data with the IV, encrypting the sensitive data using the IV as an encryption key, and the like. The IV can be a portion of the sensitive data], [0054, phone number known to be associated with the mobile device to identify a token table stored in the token tables storage module 204C and tokenizing the pre-determined string with the identified token table. If the tokenized string received from the communication application matches the string tokenized by the security interface, the security interface can determine that the identity of the mobile device is authentic, and can permit the establishment of the communication session], the mobile device sends information to the central server which provides content, moreover, Deutsch teaches content provider server in para. [0035]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Mattson i.e. tokenization map for sensitive data into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will tokenization for sensitive data. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell/Mattson are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Mattson into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have data tokenization to protect sensitive data. The motivation would be to enhance security of a system to protect sensitive data (Mattson, [0004, To prevent unauthorized access to sensitive data, steps can be taken to protect the sensitive data]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033) and in view of Mattson et al. (US 2013/0212024) and Asefi et al. (US 2020/0387892).
With respect to claim 19, Deutsch and Tanide in combination teach the mobile device of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the local tokenization map is stored on the mobile device and the mobile device is to receive a detokenization request for providing sensitive data, wherein the mobile device is to provide the sensitive data that has been detokenized using the local tokenization map on the mobile device to the content provider server in an encrypted form, wherein the mobile device is to send the encrypted sensitive data to the content provider server either directly or via a search server, and wherein the content provider server is to decrypt and to use the detokenized sensitive data and to delete the sensitive data immediately after usage.
However, Mattson teaches wherein the local tokenization map is stored on the mobile device and to receive a detokenization request for providing sensitive data ([0039, Each token server 202 can also serve token tables to other token servers. For example, the token server 202A can serve one or more token tables used in tokenization by the communication application 206 to the token server 202C for use in detokenization by the security interface 212, and for storage in the token tables storage module 204C], [0057, The security interface 212 can detokenize received tokenized communication data prior to the storage or routing of the communication data by the communication server 210. For example, if the central communication system 114 is securely coupled to the communication server 226, the security interface can detokenized received tokenized communication data], the mobile device receives detokenization request to provide sensitive data), wherein the is to provide the sensitive data that has been detokenized using the local tokenization map on the mobile device to the content provider server in an encrypted form ([0057, the security interface can detokenize communication data from the mobile device tokenized according to the first level of security, and can re-tokenize the communication data according to the second level of security prior to the serving of the communication data to the computer by the communication server], [0061, an encryption key can be generated for use in encrypting the tokenized data prior to communication based on an identity of the user of the mobile device. The mobile device tokenizes 330 the identified data based on the identified tokenized parameters, and transmits 340 the tokenized data to a central communication system], sending the detokenized data into the server), wherein the mobile device is to send the encrypted sensitive data to the content provider server either directly or via a search server ([0061, encryption key can be generated for use in encrypting the tokenized data prior to communication based on an identity of the user of the mobile device. The mobile device tokenizes 330 the identified data based on the identified tokenized parameters, and transmits 340 the tokenized data to a central communication system]), and wherein the content provider server is to decrypt and to use the detokenized sensitive data ([0053, the security interface decrypts the encrypted communication data using device information and/or session information received from the mobile device or stored at the central communication system], [0084, a payment entity can receive an encryption algorithm and/or encryption key, and can encrypt/decrypt received payment information without explicitly performing tokenization], [0094, decrypts the encrypted payment information using the encryption algorithm, tokenizes the decrypted payment information using the second set of token tables, and outputs the second tokenized payment information], the decrypt the data and use the detokenization data).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Mattson i.e. detokenization and encryption of sensitive data into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will tokenization for sensitive data. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell/Mattson are analogous arts because each art teaches search queries and generating results based on the search queries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Mattson into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell to have data tokenization to protect sensitive data. The motivation would be to enhance security of a system to protect sensitive data (Mattson, [0004, To prevent unauthorized access to sensitive data, steps can be taken to protect the sensitive data]).
Deutsch, Tanide and Mattson do not in combination explicitly teach the mobile device is to receive a detokenization request for providing sensitive data; wherein the mobile device is to provide the sensitive data; and to delete the sensitive data immediately after usage.
However, Asefi teaches the mobile device is to receive a detokenization request for providing sensitive data ([0029, The mobile wallet circuit 144 may receive this information and either de-tokenize the token or transmit the token to another entity for detokenization. Once the token is de-tokenized, the mobile wallet circuit 144 may identify the financial institution associated with the payment account and transmit the transaction information to the financial institution computing system 150, which may authorize the transaction request], the mobile wallet (mobile device) receives detokenization request for sensitive data); wherein the mobile device is to provide the sensitive data ([0072, the payment credentials may be transmitted to external computing systems (e.g., a card network computing system and/or the financial institution computing system 150) for detokenization and verification. To illustrate, in one embodiment, the mobile wallet computing system 140 may transmit information regarding the transaction to the financial institution computing system 150], mobile device transmits the data); to use the detokenized sensitive data and to delete the sensitive data immediately after usage ([0037, after the purchaser device 110 transmits the payment credential to the merchant computing system 120 (e.g., in response to a credential request received from the merchant computing system 120), the credential is deleted from the purchaser device 110. Thus, the systems and methods disclosed herein facilitate the temporary lending of payment credentials]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Asefi i.e. mobile device receiving detokenization and sending the data and deleting the sensitive data after user into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell/Mattson to have a system which will use mobile device to detokenization of sensitive data and sending the detokenization data and also to delete the sensitive data after use to have an efficient system. Deutsch/Tanide/Mattson/Asefi are analogous arts because each art teaches data processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Asefi into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/ Stanley-Marbell/Mattson to have data mobile device processing detokenization and deleting the sensitive data after use to protect sensitive data. The motivation would be to enhance security of a system to protect sensitive data (Asefi, [0034, Any communication protocol may be used (e.g., the WebSocket protocol) and various encryption keys may be interchanged between the data exchange circuit 146 and the purchaser device 110 to enhance the security of the communications]).
Claim(s) 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (US 2016/0026226) and in view of Tanide et al. (US 2016/0098028) and in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 2013/0226837) and in view of Stanley-Marbell et.al. (US 2015/0351033) and Asefi et al. (US 2020/0387892).
With respect to claim 20, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell in combination teach the mobile device of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein a local tokenization map and an application specific detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is to receive tokenized sensitive data from a content provider server via a search server, wherein the mobile device is to use the application specific detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized sensitive data and to use the detokenized, i.e. the sensitive data in clear, in application dedicated to use the sensitive data.
However, Asefi teaches wherein a local tokenization map and an application specific detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is to receive tokenized sensitive data from a content provider server via a search server ([0023, a mapping algorithm may be utilized to map Token-to-Primary Account Number (PAN) information. Thus, when a token is received (e.g., from the merchant computing system 120), the mapping algorithm determines the associated PAN and sends that information to the issuer (e.g., the financial institution computing system 150)], [0029, The mobile wallet circuit 144 may receive this information and either de-tokenize the token or transmit the token to another entity for detokenization. Once the token is de-tokenized, the mobile wallet circuit 144 may identify the financial institution associated with the payment account and transmit the transaction information to the financial institution computing system 150, which may authorize the transaction request]), wherein the mobile device is to use the application specific detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized sensitive data and to use the detokenized, i.e. the sensitive data in clear, in application dedicated to use the sensitive data ([0071, first de-tokenize the received payment credentials (e.g., by transmitting the payment credentials to a card network computing system or via a token vault maintained at the mobile wallet computing system 140)], [0072, in arrangements where the mobile wallet computing system 140 is not associated with the financial institution computing system 150, the payment credentials may be transmitted to external computing systems (e.g., a card network computing system and/or the financial institution computing system 150) for detokenization and verification], mobile wallet uses software module (plugin) to detokenize data).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Asefi i.e. mobile device plugging to detokenize sensitive data an into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will use mobile device plugin to detokenization of sensitive data to have a secured system. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell/Asefi are analogous arts because each art teaches data processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Asefi into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have data mobile device processing detokenization to process data faster and also to enhance security of the data to prevent fraud. The motivation would be to enhance security of a system to protect sensitive data (Asefi, [0034, Any communication protocol may be used (e.g., the WebSocket protocol) and various encryption keys may be interchanged between the data exchange circuit 146 and the purchaser device 110 to enhance the security of the communications]).
With respect to claim 21, Deutsch, Tanide, Lymberopoulos, Stanley-Marbell Asefi in combination teach the mobile device of claim 20, Deutsch, Tanide do not explicitly teach wherein a local tokenization map and a form-filling detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device, wherein the mobile device is to receive a form to be filled in along with tokenized data directly from a content provider server along with a request to detokenize the tokenized data and to use the detokenized data to fill in the form, wherein the mobile device is to use the form-filling detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized data and to fill in the form using the detokenized data and to thereafter send the form to an intended recipient.
However, Asefi teaches wherein a local tokenization map and a form-filling detokenization plugin are stored on the mobile device ([0026, the mobile wallet circuit 144 may retrieve such information from the account database 158 at the financial institution computing system 150 to automatically populate the user's wallet]), wherein the mobile device is to receive a form to be filled in along with tokenized data directly from a content provider server along with a request to detokenize the tokenized data and to use the detokenized data to fill in the form ([0027, mobile wallet computing system 140 and stored in association with the approver's mobile wallet account in the mobile wallet database 148. In some embodiments, once such a tokenization process occurs, the approver's mobile wallet is populated with the various payment accounts]), wherein the mobile device is to use the form-filling detokenization plugin to access the local tokenization map to detokenize the tokenized data and to fill in the form using the detokenized data and to thereafter send the form to an intended recipient ([0027, mobile wallet computing system 140 and stored in association with the approver's mobile wallet account in the mobile wallet database 148. In some embodiments, once such a tokenization process occurs, the approver's mobile wallet is populated with the various payment accounts], [0028, once the approver's mobile wallet is populated with various approver payment accounts, such payment accounts may be used not only by the approver to engage in transactions at a POS terminal], [0030, a mobile wallet user may register for a mobile wallet account who possess no payment accounts with which to populate a mobile wallet], the wallet is populated with information to detokenization data).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the functionalities of Asefi i.e. mobile device form-filling plugging to detokenize sensitive into Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have a system which will use mobile device form filling plugin to detokenization of sensitive data to have a secured system faster. Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell/Asefi are analogous arts because each art teaches data processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate functionalities of Asefi into the system of Deutsch/Tanide/ Lymberopoulos/Stanley-Marbell to have data mobile device using form-filling detokenization to process data faster and also to enhance security of the data to prevent fraud. The motivation would be to enhance security of a system to protect sensitive data (Asefi, [0034, Any communication protocol may be used (e.g., the WebSocket protocol) and various encryption keys may be interchanged between the data exchange circuit 146 and the purchaser device 110 to enhance the security of the communications]).
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Morse et al. (US 2006/0277271) teaches analyzing users history information and identifying the predetermined time the user watches/views certain content in paragraphs [0049, 0050].
Jitkoff et al. (US 2012/0036151) teaches sleep/wake time of users mobile device in paragraphs [0098, 0099].
Da Silva Ramos et al. (US 2017/0220307) teaches historical usage of mobile devices of users in paragraphs [0073, 0077].
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 FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/FATIMA P MINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights