Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 06/29/2026.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 2-5,8,12-15,18 have been canceled.
Claims 1,6-7,9-11,16-17 and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 06/29/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1,6-7,9-11,16-17 and 19-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2 A, Prong 1
Applicant argues that “ At least the access control policy enforcement limitation of amended claim 1 does not fall within any of the three enumerated abstract idea categories. The smart wallet enforcing stored access control policies by evaluating them against user information and selectively returning only those data fields for which access is permitted under user-defined permissions is not a mathematical concept, not a method of organizing human activity, and not a mental process. Specification at [0026], [0034]. The August 2025 Memorandum specifically instructs examiners not to expand the mental process grouping to encompass claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and the systematic, automated evaluation of stored, user- defined access control policies across discrete data fields of government-issued identification data is precisely the type of operation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. August 2025 Memorandum at 2 (page 2/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The Applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the steps of (the systematic, automated evaluation of stored, user- defined access control policies across discrete data fields of government-issued identification data” is precisely the type of operation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process". Instead the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot.
Furthermore the recitation of “ systematic, automated evaluation of stored, user- defined access control policies across discrete data fields of government-issued identification data” is indeed directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Also, the use of computer system here fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ Similarly, the positioning-signal-based address accuracy determination recited in amended claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea. The accumulation of position measurements obtained from satellite antennas using GNSS data, cellular data, or Wi-Fi positioning signals over a period of time, and the use of those hardware-dependent measurements to confirm that a government-issued permanent physical address is correct, is not a mental process and is not a method of organizing human activity. Specification at [0029], [0039]. This limitation requires specific hardware-based signal sources and a sensor-driven accumulation process over time that is categorically different from a step of merely analyzing data, and is analogous to the hardware- based RFID transponder example cited in the August 2025 Memorandum as an illustration of a claim limitation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and therefore does not recite a mental process. August 2025 Memorandum at 2. Because the amended claim does not recite a judicial exception, it should be found eligible at Step 2A, Prong 1, and no further analysis is required (page 3/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The Applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the steps of “The accumulation of position measurements obtained from satellite antennas using GNSS data, cellular data, or Wi-Fi positioning signals over a period of time, and the use of those hardware-dependent measurements to confirm that a government-issued permanent physical address is correct” and cannot practically be performed in the human mind is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind.
The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process". Instead the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot.
Furthermore the recitation of “ accumulation of position measurements obtained over a period of time, and the use of those measurements to confirm that a government-issued permanent physical address is correct” is indeed directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Here, the use of satellite antennas using GNSS data, cellular data, or Wi-Fi positioning signals does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2 A, prong 2
Applicant argues that “ The amended claim reflects these improvements because it requires the smart wallet to evaluate stored access control policies and selectively return only permitted data fields, and further requires that location history be accumulated from positioning signals over time to confirm address accuracy, both of which are the specific components of the solution disclosed in the specification. Specification at [0026], [0029], [0034], [0039]”. The action's reliance on SAP v. Investpic for the proposition that improvements rooted in the abstract idea are ineligible is inapplicable here. Action at 4. The access control policy enforcement and positioning-signal-based verification limitations are not improvements to any advertising or marketing abstract idea; they are improvements to how the smart wallet system itself controls data access and confirms address accuracy, rooted in specific technical elements of the claim rather than in the abstract idea. The claimed access control policy evaluation and positioning-signal-based measurement accumulation impose specific, hardware-dependent constraints on the operation of the system that meaningfully limit the practice of any recited exception. Desjardins Memorandum at 4-5 (page 4/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. “evaluate stored access control policies and selectively return only permitted data fields, and further requires that location history be accumulated from positioning signals over time to confirm address accuracy ” is indeed directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). The use of smart wallet system does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
Furthermore, since “evaluate stored access control policies and selectively return only permitted data fields, and further requires that location history be accumulated from positioning signals over time to confirm address accuracy” are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements argued above is “smart wallet”, as evidenced by applicant specification [paragraphs 17, 52-57] which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).
As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “The action distinguished the prior argument under Example 47, Claim 3 from the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas (Examples 37-42) ("SME Examples 37-42") on the basis that steps d-f in that example did not fall within any abstract idea category and thus served as additional elements, whereas the prior argued limitations fell within the advertising category and could not. Action at 5-7. The present amendments directly address this distinction because the access control policy enforcement limitation does not fall within any advertising or marketing category, serving precisely the role of the additional elements in Example 47, Claim 3, that transformed the abstract idea into a practical application. (page 4/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. With regards to Example 47, the applicant's arguments are not convincing because the instant claims bear no similarities to the claim 3 of abstract idea Example 47. In claim 3 of abstract idea example 47, limitations d-f did not fall within any of the abstract idea categories and, as such, were considered "additional elements" under Step 2a, Prong 2. When considering steps d-f in combination, claim 3 recited an improvement rooted in the additional elements of d-f that transformed the abstract idea into a practical application. In contrast, the argued limitation fall withing the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" category because they either recite an advertising activity or are steps performed in order for advertising to be provided to a user. Hence, it is clear that the argued limitations bear no similarities to step d-f in claim 3 of Abstract Idea example 47. If anything, the argued limitation are similar to steps a-c in claim 3 of Abstract Idea Example 47, in that they recite an abstract idea. As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejection have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ The August 2025 Memorandum further instructs that the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis must take into consideration all claim limitations and how those limitations interact with and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application. August 2025 Memorandum at 3. When the access control policy enforcement mechanism and the positioning-signal-based address verification are considered as part of the ordered combination of claim 1, the claim as a whole provides a specific, technically grounded solution that imposes meaningful limits on the practice of any recited exception. Specification at [0001], [0015], [0026], [0029], [0039], (page 4/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. as stated above the claimed “the access control policy enforcement mechanism and the positioning-signal-based address verification” is part of the abstract idea, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Under Step 2B, the claim is also analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Although additional elements are recited, representative claim 1 merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer such as a smart wallet is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e. smart wallet being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, an purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not.
The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, representative claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)”. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of representative claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2 B:
Applicant argues that “The access control policy enforcement mechanism is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional computer function; it is a specific security and privacy architecture in which the smart wallet itself evaluates user-defined permissions against requested data fields and selectively releases only authorized data, rather than delegating that access decision to the requesting application. This self-contained policy enforcement model represents a specific technological improvement to data security and privacy in smart wallet systems, as described in the specification. Specification at [0026], [0034]. Similarly, the use of position measurements obtained from satellite antennas, cellular data, or Wi-Fi positioning signals accumulated over a period of time to confirm the accuracy of a government-issued permanent address is a specific sensor-based verification process that is not a conventional step of data analysis. Specification at [0029], [0039]. Accordingly, the amended claim amounts to significantly more than any judicial exception and is eligible under Step 2B as well. The remaining claims are also allowable for at least similar reasons. Reconsideration and allowance of all claims are therefore requested (page 5/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments here are similar to the one addressed above in the proceeding section. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1,6-7,9-11,16-17 and 19-20 rejection under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant argues that “ Claim 1 is amended to further require that the smart wallet enforce stored access control policies for the user information of the virtual ID by evaluating the stored access control policies against the user information and selectively returning only those data fields of the user information for which access is permitted under user-defined permissions associated with the stored access control policies. The cited art fails to suggest this limitation. The action cites Vawter for disclosing the querying of the smart wallet. Action at 13. Vawter discloses a security module 330 that performs authentication and authorization functions to identify a user or device and determine whether it is authorized to access the virtual wallet account or a communication session, but Vawter's security module 330 does not evaluate stored access control policies against individual data fields of user information and does not selectively return only those data fields for which access is permitted. Vawter at [0043]-[0047], (page 6/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. Vawter in at least paragraph 16 discloses The server may run a virtual wallet application that allows one or more users to access, configure, update, etc. his/her virtual wallet information. For example, a user may log into the server via web browser and may upload photos into his/her virtual wallet account. The user may instruct the server to send certain photos to a mobile terminal operated by the user. The certain photos may be stored on the mobile terminal via a virtual wallet application operating on the mobile terminal. Vawter also in at least paragraph 78 discloses Banner 630 may include information related to a user of terminal 110, terminal 110, server 130, and/or other people, devices, etc. For example, banner 630 may include a greeting to a user of terminal 110 when he/she logs into virtual wallet application 340. In another implementation, banner 630 may include a warning indicating that only authorized users may access information stored in the user's virtual wallet account. Vawter also in at least paragraph 91 discloses Terminal 110 may retrieve information from wallet storage 525 via mobile application 550 (block 920). For example, a user of terminal 110 may arrive at a fast food restaurant and may wish to order food using his/her preferred menu. The user may instruct terminal 110 to retrieve the preferred menu from storage 520 (e.g., mobile storage 525) or from storage module 350 (FIG. 3) on server 130 (e.g., virtual wallet information 357). Terminal 110 may display the preferred menu on a display of terminal 110 so the user can make changes to the preferred menu when desired.
As such the cited reference of Vawter teaches the claimed limitation of “ the smart wallet enforce stored access control policies for the user information of the virtual ID by evaluating the stored access control policies against the user information and selectively returning only those data fields of the user information for which access is permitted under user-defined permissions associated with the stored access control policies”.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1 ,6-7,9-11,16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 103, over the cited prior art is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ Engel's location history tracking logs only the locations of a wireless device to generate targeted advertising offers based on travel patterns, comparing logged locations to previous locations frequented by the user and analyzing those patterns to determine offers and advertisements. Engel at [0085]-[0090]. Engel also describes a handset equipped with GPS or other positioning services that tracks individual routes of household members as they go about their daily routine, with those routes communicated to a docking station and/or an external server to modify advertising offers generated for each household member. Engel at [0077]. However, neither the location logging nor the GPS-based route tracking teaches suggests accumulated position measurements to confirm that a permanent physical address is a correct address associated with the client device; all location tracking in Engel is used exclusively to optimize advertising content, not to verify the accuracy of government-issued identification data. The remaining art fails to remedy the noted shortcomings. Claim 11, while distinct in scope, is similarly allowable. Reconsideration and allowance of claims 1 and 11, as well as any claims that depend therefrom, are therefore requested (page 7/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that [ neither the location logging nor the GPS-based route tracking teaches suggests accumulated position measurements to confirm that a permanent physical address is a correct address associated with the client device; all location tracking in Engel is used exclusively to optimize advertising content, not to verify the accuracy of government-issued identification data ], a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As such the cited reference of Engle teaches the claimed limitation (s). Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1 ,6-7,9-11,16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 103, over the cited prior art is maintained.
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 1,6-7,9-11,16-17 and 19-20 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1,6-7,9-11,16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
receive a virtual identification (ID) by a smart wallet, wherein the virtual ID comprises a mobile driver's license;
determine an interaction process to initiate;
query the smart wallet to access user information of the virtual ID based on a determined interaction process, wherein the user information comprises a permanent physical address submitted to a government for official identification purposes, and wherein the smart wallet enforces stored access control policies for the user information of the virtual ID by evaluating the stored access control policies against the user information and selectively returning only those data fields of the user information for which access is permitted under user-defined permissions associated with the stored access control policies;
track location of the client device over a period of time to generate a location history;
analyze the location history to confirm an accuracy of the permanent physical address through a determination, based on position measurements of the location history accumulated over the period of time, that the permanent physical address is a correct address associated with the client device, wherein the position measurements of the client device are obtained from a positioning signal over the period of time;
obtain a current location of the client using global positioning data;
compare the permanent physical address of the virtual ID with the current location of the client device; determine a digital advertisement based on the permanent physical address rather than the current location of the client when the permanent physical address and the current location differ;
initiate the interaction process with the client device using the user information of the virtual ID, wherein initiating the interaction process comprises providing the digital advertisement to the client device;
access a user account associated with the virtual ID;
compare the permanent physical address of the virtual ID with an address of the user account to determine that the address of the user account differs from the permanent physical address of the virtual ID; and
automatically send a notification to the client device requesting verification of an address change from the address of the user account to the permanent physical address of the virtual ID based on determining a difference;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of ( computer system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable storage media, client device, digital wallet) (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive a virtual identification (ID) by a smart wallet, wherein the virtual ID comprises a mobile driver's license ( receiving data);
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “ computer system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable storage media, client device, digital wallet (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer component), to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 17, 52-57of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive a virtual identification (ID) by a smart wallet, wherein the virtual ID comprises a mobile driver's license ( receiving data);
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claim 11.
The dependent claims 6-7,9-10,16-17,19-20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above 1,6-7,9-11,16-17,19-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations of : wherein the smart wallet enforces stored access control policies for the user information of the virtual ID by evaluating the stored access control policies against the user information and selectively returning only those data fields of the user information for which access is permitted under user-defined permissions associated with the stored access control policies; and analyze the location history to confirm an accuracy of the permanent physical address through a determination, based on position measurements of the location history accumulated over the period of time, that the permanent physical address is a correct address associated with the client device, wherein the position measurements of the client device are obtained from a positioning signal over the period of time;
The specification teaches “In some embodiments, the smart wallet server module 202 also stores preferences for data sharing. For example, the client device 102 may receive input indicating that address data from the virtual ID module 106 can be shared with third parties. Other user information can be indicated as shareable as well. The smart wallet server module 202 receives the preferences from the smart wallet module 104 and stores the preferences as data. In some embodiments, the smart wallet server module 202 allows other applications and services to access stored virtual ID address data based on the stored preference data (paragraph 34)”. The specification does not teach “wherein the smart wallet enforces stored access control policies for the user information of the virtual ID by evaluating the stored access control policies against the user information and selectively returning only those data fields of the user information for which access is permitted under user-defined permissions associated with the stored access control policies”;
The specification teaches “ In some embodiments, the smart wallet module 104 may restrict access to user information of the virtual ID module 106. Once the virtual ID module 106 is added to the smart wallet module 104, the smart wallet module 104 may be initialized based on the user's comfort level with third party use of data from the virtual ID module 106. For instance, the smart wallet module 104 may restrict access to a listed user home address but may allow access to the zip code of the home address. As another example, the smart wallet module 104 may restrict access to the listed user age but may allow access to an age range of the user (<21, 21-30, 31-55, 55+, etc.). Once initialized, other applications may query the smart wallet module 104 to enable enhanced demographic-based business processes (paragraph 26). The specification does not teach “ analyze the location history to confirm an accuracy of the permanent physical address through a determination, based on position measurements of the location history accumulated over the period of time, that the permanent physical address is a correct address associated with the client device, wherein the position measurements of the client device are obtained from a positioning signal over the period of time”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vawter, US Pub No: 2008/0048022 A1 in view of Engel et al, US Pub No: 2019/0378147 A1 in view of Hamilton et al, US Pat No : 8,548,910 B1.
Claims 1 and 11,
Vawter discloses:
receive a virtual identification (ID) by a smart wallet, wherein the virtual ID comprises driver’s license (see at least the abstract, paragraphs 14,85-86; abstract (A managed service may include first logic to receive authentication information from a user terminal on behalf of a user, and receive user information on behalf of the user when the user terminal is authenticated via the authentication information. The first logic may send a portion of the user information to a mobile wallet application operating on a mobile terminal related to the user, and may receive updated user information from the mobile terminal, where the updated user information identifies a change to the portion of the user information, the change based on an operation performed via the mobile terminal on behalf of the user); paragraph 14 (the virtual wallet may store electronic representations of driver's license information for the user, bank account information, credit card information, automated teller machine (ATM) card information, medical information, contacts, coupons, electronic keys (e.g., house keys or car keys), etc); paragraph 86 ( the user may enter identifying information and may select a user name and password for use with virtual wallet application 340. Virtual wallet application 340 may establish a virtual wallet account on behalf of the user when the user's identity is valid);
determine an interaction process to initiate with a client device (see at least paragraph 15 (The user may make a purchase using information retrieved from the virtual wallet, such as a shopping list, credit card information, coupons, etc.); paragraph 60 (For example, coupons 470 may include information that allows terminal 110 to receive a discount on goods or services when the coupon information is sent to transaction device 140 during a transaction); paragraph 98 (For example, server 130 may store changes in the preferred menu (if any) in ordering information 425, a receipt for the transaction in receipts 420, information regarding charges to the credit card in credit/debit cards 415 and any coupons received from the fast food restaurant in coupons 470. Server 130 may notify terminal 110 that an account related thereto has been updated using the completed transaction information);
query the smart wallet to access user information of the virtual ID based on a determined interaction process, wherein the user information comprises a permanent physical address submitted to a government for official identification purposes (see at least paragraphs 79-84; paragraph 84 and Fig 7 with the associated text (User information (user permanent address 755) may include information maintained on behalf of a user by a department of motor vehicles identified by department name 745. Verify button 760 may include information or code that allows a user to verify that his/her information downloaded from the department of motor vehicles is correct. For example, selecting “correct” for verify button 760 may store user information 755 on server 130 in virtual wallet information 357 (e.g., identification information 405) and selecting “incorrect” may send the user to a customer support representative at the department of motor vehicles so that the incorrect information can be corrected before the information is downloaded to server 130);
wherein the smart wallet enforces stored access control policies for the user information of the virtual ID by evaluating the stored access control policies against the user information and selectively returning only those data fields of the user information for which access is permitted under user-defined permissions associated with the stored access control policies ( see at least paragraph 16 (The server may run a virtual wallet application that allows one or more users to access, configure, update, etc. his/her virtual wallet information. For example, a user may log into the server via web browser and may upload photos into his/her virtual wallet account. The user may instruct the server to send certain photos to a mobile terminal operated by the user. The certain photos may be stored on the mobile terminal via a virtual wallet application operating on the mobile terminal); paragraph 78 (Banner 630 may include information related to a user of terminal 110, terminal 110, server 130, and/or other people, devices, etc. For example, banner 630 may include a greeting to a user of terminal 110 when he/she logs into virtual wallet application 340. In another implementation, banner 630 may include a warning indicating that only authorized users may access information stored in the user's virtual wallet account); paragraph 91 discloses Terminal 110 may retrieve information from wallet storage 525 via mobile application 550 (block 920). For example, a user of terminal 110 may arrive at a fast food restaurant and may wish to order food using his/her preferred menu. The user may instruct terminal 110 to retrieve the preferred menu from storage 520 (e.g., mobile storage 525) or from storage module 350 (FIG. 3) on server 130 (e.g., virtual wallet information 357). Terminal 110 may display the preferred menu on a display of terminal 110 so the user can make changes to the preferred menu when desired.
initiate the interaction process with the client device using the user information of the virtual ID, wherein initiating the interaction process comprises providing the digital advertisement to the client device (see at least paragraphs 15, 98-99; paragraph 15 (the user may make a purchase using information retrieved from the virtual wallet, such as a shopping list, credit card information, coupons, etc); paragraph 98 (For example, server 130 may store changes in the preferred menu (if any) in ordering information 425, a receipt for the transaction in receipts 420, information regarding charges to the credit card in credit/debit cards 415 and any coupons received from the fast food restaurant in coupons 470. Server 130 may notify terminal 110 that an account related thereto has been updated using the completed transaction information);
Vawter does not specifically disclose, but Engel however discloses :
track location of the client device over a period of time to generate a location history (see at least paragraph 56 ( in some embodiments, the process, at step 506, may receive one or more frequent destination addresses/places of interest associated with a consumer. For example, in one embodiment, a user may enter a user's work address, a school's address, one or more friends' or relatives' addresses, the address of a local gym, and/or the address of a grocery store. In one embodiment, the process determines the travel route information from the user's home location to the one or more frequent destination addresses and retrieves advertising content associated with businesses along the determined travel routes); paragraph 42 ( Each of the locations and routes may be used to target advertising to the in-home advertising device 200 by merchants that happen to have locations at such locations or along such routes. Routes can be combined with day of the week, date of the month, or time of day logic to present advertisement via in-home advertising device 200, particularly when combined with knowledge obtained from a calendar or appointment application);
analyze the location history to confirm an accuracy of the permanent physical address through a determination, based on position measurements of the location history accumulated over the period of time, that the permanent physical address is a correct address associated with the client device, wherein the position measurements of the client device are obtained from a positioning signal over the period of time;
obtain a current location of the client device using global positioning data:
See at least paragraph 20 (an in-home advertising device is defined as an electronic device that is utilized only within a home environment, such as, residential location 180, for the purpose of presenting advertisements/offers to a consumer. In-home advertising device 200 may be placed within any location within residential location 180); paragraph 49 (The process, at step 408, authenticates the device using data received as part of the connection requests. For instance, in one embodiment, the process determines the physical location of the in-home advertising device using cellular triangulation, GPS, and/or IP address to verify that the in-home advertising device is located in the correct physical location associated with the address of the registered consumer); paragraph 77 (in one embodiment, handset 690 could be loaded with an application that records the location of any position in which the handset 690 remains in the general vicinity of for at least five minutes (e.g. accumulation position measurement)” . Such locations could then be logged as destinations and communicated to docking station 600 and/or an external server and used to formulate new offers. Such offers could be generated based on the recognition of changes in a daily routine, the number of times a particular location is visited, or locations lying between the location of docking station 600 and each of these other determined locations); paragraph 85 discloses a location is logged at predetermined intervals of time (e.g location accumulation over a period of time ), such as once every ten minutes. In yet another embodiment, the location of the device is logged every time the device stops moving for a period greater than a predetermined amount of time. For example, the location of a device may be logged every time the device remains in the same position, or within a predetermined differential from a position, for more than five minutes. The predetermined differential prevents the logging of multiple entries that are in fact approximately the same location. In such a manner, the locations of a user of a device may be logged where the user actually stops for a predetermined period of time);
compare the permanent physical address of the virtual ID with the current location of the client device; determine a digital advertisement based on the permanent physical address rather than the current location of the client device when the permanent physical address and the current location differ (See at least paragraph 28 (advertising device server 130 may identify the user associated with the transmitting in-home advertising device 200 (e.g., using subscriber information associated with in-home advertising device 200), retrieve payment information associated with the identified user (e.g., stored credit card information), verify the transaction (e.g., the user must enter a pin/password using in-home advertising device 200), and place the order with a vendor (e.g., using a web site hosted by Web server 160)); paragraph 50 (an in-home advertising device may be utilized in more than one location. For example, if a consumer moves and transfers residential addresses, the new location of the in-home advertising device may be determined using cellular triangulation, GPS, or IP address. In such an embodiment, in-home advertising device may itself automatically communicate its new location to a server such as advertising device server 130. Advertising device server 130 may then alter the advertisements sent to the consumer in response to the new geographic location associated with the home location of the in-home advertising device. In one embodiment, in-home advertising device may determine its new location each time it is powered on, when a “new home location” or similar option is selected by a user, or after a material change in location is detected. In a similar manner, in-home advertising device may be moved to a vacation home, office, or other location and still operate without having to re-register for the advertising service);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Vawter’s of virtual wallet including determining location application with the teaching of Engel’s location hstory information with the motivation of providing in-time location information as taught by Engel over that of Vawter.
The combination of Vawter/Engel does not specifically disclose, but Hamilton however discloses:
access a user account: compare permanent physical address with an address of the user account to determine that the address of a user account differs from the permanent physical address: and automatically send a notification to the client device requesting verification of an address change from the address of the user account to the permanent physical address based on determining a difference (see at least column 6, lines 32-50 (Notification engine 303 compares account information from data extract feeds 303 with processing information from thresholds database 307, status codes database 309, National Change of Address (NCOA) database 311, and high risk zip code database 313 to determine if the address change request is possibly fraudulent. (Processing by notification engine 301 is further discussed with FIGS. 4-12.) If so, notification engine 301 generates a notification to the holder of the account based on the telephone number of record through phone delivery 317 and/or based on the address of record through letter delivery 315. With some embodiments, the notification may be sent to the e-mail address of record. With some embodiments, notification engine 301 may first attempt to contact the customer to the telephone number of record. If the call is unsuccessful, notification engine 301 may initiate the mailing of a post card or letter to the customer at the address of record. Other embodiments may execute different notification strategies, e.g., both calling the customer as well as mailing a notification to the customer ; column 8, lines 35-46 and Fig 8 with the associated text (NCOA processing 603 provides inputs 805 (that may include the customer name and old address) to VeriMove.TM. software 807 (available from Pitney Bowes Business) to check customer records against the USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) database (NCOALink.RTM.). With some embodiments, module 803 de-duplicates multiple address change records if the customer has moved multiple times and uses the latest address change for accessing the NCOA database);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Vawter’s / Engel virtual wallet historical location information with the teaching of Hamilton’s address change notification with the motivation of keeping accurate user’s profile information and hence targeting consumers more accurately and in efficiently manner as taught by Hamilton over that of Vawter’s / Engel
Claims 7 and 17:
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton discloses the limitations as shown above;
Vawter further discloses:
provide another notification requesting verification of the address of the virtual ID (see at least paragraph 82 and fig 7 with the associated text (, window 740 may open when a user selects department of motor vehicles 710. Window 740 may allow the user to access, enter, or upload/download his/her identification information as the information relates to a department of motor vehicles (e.g., a state department of motor vehicles). In one implementation, window 740 may include department name 745, import information button 750, user information 755, and a verify button 760);
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vawter, US Pub No: 2008/0048022 A1 in view of in view of Engel et al, US Pub no: 2019/0378147 A1 in view of Hamilton et al, US Pat No : 8,548,910 B1 and further in view of Hurry, US Pub No: 2016/0140549 A1.
Claims 6 and 16:
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton discloses the limitations as shown above;
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton does not specifically disclose, but Hurry however discloses:
wherein to initiate the interaction process includes to send a payment card to the address (see at least paragraph 84 (The approved media device payment account application indication of message 274 includes a user 208 mailing address as well as additional user 208 payment account information to allow smart card personalization service server 278 to prompt a mailing of a generated smart card with the user 208 payment account information to user 208);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Vawter’s / Engel/ Hamilton virtual wallet historical location information with the teaching of Hurry’s module ID based targeted marketing with the motivation to deliver personalization payment card service to consumers as taught by Harry over that Vawter’s / Engel/ Hamilton .
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vawter, US Pub No: 2008/0048022 A1 in view of Engel et al, US Pub No: 2019/0378147 A1 in view of Hamilton et al, US Pat No : 8,548,910 B1 and further in view of Pyhalammi et al, US Pub No:2008/0010133 A1.
Claims 9 -10 and 19-20:
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton discloses the limitations as shown above.
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton does not specifically disclose, but Pyhalammi however discloses:
provide a notification to the client device, wherein another notification requests input indicating the user information is shareable;
receive input restricting access to at least some of the user information ;
See at least paragraph 40 (server 300 may control and restrict the distribution of private user information to only user authorized entities (sharing with other entities). Various restrictions and permissions may be specified user upon registering with server 300 or an underlying system. According to aspects, server 300 may be restricted from distributing any information related to a user unless given express permission);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Vawter’s / Engel/ Hamilton virtual wallet historical location information with the teaching of Pyhalammi’s limiting access to user’s information with the motivation of protection user’s privacy information as taught by Pyhalammi over that of Vawter’s / Engel/ Hamilton.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Clark et al, US Pub No: 2023/0177635 A1, teaches analyzes demographic data that is associated with a specific street address when presented as an address change on an existing account or an address included on a new account application when that address is different from the reference address (e.g., a credit bureau type header data). The old or reference address and the new address, the new account application address or fulfillment address demographic attributes are gathered, analyzed, compared for divergence and scaled to reflect the relative fraud risk.
Mithal et al, US Pub No:2009/0257591 A1,teaches controlling the release of an as-rendered configuration of a digital work, comprising the steps of presenting said digital work as a composite of a plurality of layers comprising at least a first layer and a second layer; providing a rendering protocol interface which is adapted for defining said as-rendered configuration of the digital work by specifying a first rendering status of said first layer and a second rendering status of said second layer; providing a rendering protocol facility adapted for storing and controlling the release of said first and second rendering status of said first and second layers respectively in accordance with said as-rendered configuration; restricting unauthorized access to the rendering protocol interface, thereby preventing unauthorized modification of said as-rendered configuration; and releasing said digital work with said as-rendered configuration. The method has application in selling books, movies, software, music and other information products. A method of selling a preview version of an information product along with an option of purchase of the original version is described.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights