DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 6/21/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/8/2025.
a. Claims 7, 14, 21 are amended
b. Claims 1-6, 12, 19, 26 are cancelled
c. Claims 27-29 are new
Overall, Claims 7-11, 13-18, 20-25, 27-29 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 7-11, 13-18, 20-25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 7-13 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 14-20 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and claims 21-26 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 7, (which is representative of independent claims 14, 21) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 7 (which is representative of independent claims 14, 21) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A computer-implemented method
[B] programmatically initiating one or more mobile software program communication requests configured to initiate detection of one or more application programs installed on a mobile computing device;
[C] detecting one or more application programs installed on the mobile computing device;
[D] wherein detecting the one or more application programs installed on the mobile computing device comprises:
[E] for each of a plurality of public application program links associated with respective candidate application programs, initiating, without user interaction, a communication request to access the public application program link from the mobile computing device; and
[F] for each instance wherein the communication request is successfully resolved and the respective public program application link is accessible, identifying the corresponding candidate application program as an application program installed on the mobile computing device;
[G] generating an application programs indication, the application programs indication comprising the one or more application programs installed on the mobile computing device; and
[H] causing transmission of the application programs indication to a computing device remote from the mobile computing device.
Independent claim 7 (which is representative of independent claims 14, 21) recites: detecting apps ([C]); initiating a conditional communication and identifying the corresponding application program ([E], [F]); creating a list with installed apps ([G]), and providing the list to another device ([H]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of advertising, marketing, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 7 (which is representative of independent claims 14, 21) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “a computer,” “a memory” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: initiate detection of installed apps ([B]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 7 (which is representative of independent claims 14, 21) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 7 (which is representative of claims independent 14, 21) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 7, 14, 21 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 8, which is representative of dependent claims 15, 22, recites:
[A] initiating the one or more mobile software program communication requests at predetermined time intervals.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”).
Therefore, dependent claim 8 (which is representative of dependent claims 15, 22) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9, which is representative of dependent claims 16, 23, recites:
[A] initiating the one or more mobile software program communication requests upon launch of a promotion application program.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 (which is representative of dependent claims 16, 23) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 12, which is representative of dependent claims 19, 26, recites:
[A] determining whether one or more public links associated with selected application programs are accessible.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”).
Therefore, dependent claim 12 (which is representative of dependent claims 19, 26) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 13, which is representative of dependent claims 20, recites:
[A] programmatically generating profile data characteristics associated with a user of the mobile computing device based on the application programs indication.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”).
Therefore, dependent claim 13 (which is representative of dependent claims 12) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 27, which is representative of dependent claims 28, 29, recites:
[A] detect one or more application programs not installed on the mobile computing device,
wherein detecting the one or more application programs not installed on the mobile computing device comprises:
[B] for each instance wherein the communication request is not successfully resolved and the respective public program application link is not accessible, identify the corresponding candidate application program as an application program not installed on the mobile computing device.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”).
Therefore, dependent claim 27 (which is representative of dependent claims 28, 29) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 10-11, which are representative of dependent claims 17-18, 24-25, respectively, recite:
wherein the application programs indication comprises a listing of the one or more application programs installed on the mobile computing device and at least one additional application program data item.
wherein each additional application program data item is selected from one or more of an application program source, an application program functionality, an application program download time, an application program install time, or a subject matter relevant to the corresponding application program.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the application programs; the additional application programs – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“detecting promotion apps installed on mobile devices”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 10-11, which are representative of dependent claims 17-18, 24-25, respectively are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 7-11, 13-18, 20-25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-8, 10-15, 17022, 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malik et al (US 0007245), in view of Lifshitz et al (US 2014/0075338).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, 21: Malik first embodiment discloses: A computer-implemented method comprising:
programmatically initiating one or more mobile software program communication requests configured to initiate detection of one or more application programs installed on a mobile computing device; {see at least [0027] information on installed apps to be gathered}
detecting one or more application programs installed on the mobile computing device; {see at least [0054] apps have been installed (reads on installed apps)}
wherein detecting the one or more application programs installed on the mobile computing device comprises:
generating an application programs indication, the application programs indication identifying the one or more application programs installed on the mobile computing device; and {see at least [0054] list with installed apps}
causing transmission of the application programs indication to a computing device remote from the mobile computing device. {see at least [0054] list with installed apps provided to administrator}
Malik does not disclose, however, Lifshitz discloses:
for each of a plurality of public application program links associated with respective candidate application programs, initiating, without user interaction, a communication request to access the public application program link from the mobile computing device; and {see at least [0053]-[0055] accessing an application link. The reference does not disclose the term “public”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability}
for each instance wherein the communication request is successfully resolved and the respective public program application link is accessible, identifying the corresponding candidate application program as an application program installed on the mobile computing device; {see at least [0053]-[0055] application currently installed. The reference does not disclose the term “public”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Malik to include the elements of Lifshitz. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide new applications to a user. In the instant case, Malik evidently discloses detecting apps installed on mobile devices. Lifshitz is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of accessing and installing applications on a mobile device in the same or similar context. Since both detecting apps installed on mobile devices, as well as accessing and installing applications on a mobile device are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Malik, as well as Lifshitz would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Malik / Lifshitz.
Regarding Claims 8, 15, 22: Malik, Lifshitz discloses the limitations of Claims 7, 14, 21. Malik further discloses: wherein programmatically initiating the one or more mobile software program communication requests comprises
initiating the one or more mobile software program communication requests at predetermined time intervals. {see at least [0046] regularly poll mobile devices}
Regarding Claims 10, 17, 24: Malik, Lifshitz discloses the limitations of Claims 7, 14, 21. Malik further discloses:
wherein the application programs indication comprises a listing of the one or more application programs installed on the mobile computing device and at least one additional application program data item. {see at least [0054] list with installed apps}
Regarding Claims 11, 18, 25: Malik, Lifshitz discloses the limitations of Claims 10, 17, 24. Malik further discloses:
wherein each additional application program data item is selected from one or more of an application program source, an application program functionality, an application program download time, an application program install time, or a subject matter relevant to the corresponding application program. {see at least [0005] Apple store (reads on apps source)}
Regarding Claims 12, 19, 26: Malik, Lifshitz discloses the limitations of Claims 7, 14, 21. Malik further discloses: wherein detecting the one or more application programs installed on the mobile computing device comprises
determining whether one or more public links associated with selected application programs are accessible. {see at least [0028] user instructed to download the app (reads on public link accessible) }
Regarding Claims 13, 20: Malik, Lifshitz discloses the limitations of Claims 7, 14. Malik further discloses:
programmatically generating profile data characteristics associated with a user of the mobile computing device based on the application programs indication. {see at least [0027] user profile (reads on user characteristics)}
Regarding Claims 27, 28, 29: Malik, Lifshitz discloses the limitations of Claims 7, 14, 21. Lifshitz further discloses:
detecting one or more application programs not installed on the mobile computing device, {see at least [0053] approve installation of the application (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on application not yet installed}
wherein detecting the one or more application programs not installed on the mobile computing device comprises:
for each instance wherein the communication request is not successfully resolved and the respective public program application link is not accessible, identifying the corresponding candidate application program as an application program not installed on the mobile computing
device. {see at least [0053] approve installation of the application (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on application not yet installed}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Malik, Lifshitz to include additional elements of Lifshitz. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide new applications to a user. In the instant case, Malik evidently discloses detecting apps installed on mobile devices. Lifshitz is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of accessing and installing applications on a mobile device in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 9, 16, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malik et al (US 0007245), in view of Lifshitz et al (US 2014/0075338), in further view of Ortiz et al (US 2015/0242871).
Regarding Claims 9, 16, 23: Malik, Lifshitz discloses the limitations of Claims 7, 14, 21. Malik, Lifshitz does not disclose, however, Ortiz discloses: wherein programmatically initiating the one or more mobile software program communication requests comprises
initiating the one or more mobile software program communication requests upon launch of a promotion application program. {see at least [0016] promotion app}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Malik, Lifshitz to include the elements of Ortiz. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to focus on the promotion market. In the instant case, Malik, Lifshitz evidently discloses detecting apps installed on mobile devices. Ortiz is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of promotion apps in the same or similar context. Since both detecting apps installed on mobile devices, as well as promotion apps are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Malik, Lifshitz, as well as Ortiz would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Malik, Lifshitz / Ortiz.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140064260 A1 Mastenbrook; Brian E. et al. METHOD, SYSTEM AND ARTICLE FOR WIRELESS DEVICES TO DISCOVER AND CONNECT TO OTHER DEVICES - Methods and systems are disclosed for a first wireless device to select a wireless network connection to a second wireless device. The wireless network may be a wireless local area network (WLAN), such as a Wi-Fi network. To make its selection, the first wireless device detects a beacon signal transmitted from the second wireless device. The beacon signal including a media access control (MAC) address. The first device then applies a set of programmable rules to at least a portion of the MAC address, and selects the second wireless device based on the application of the rules. The rules may also/alternatively be applied to parameters, for example, sensory inputs, such as time and date, temperature, light intensity or user actions (e.g., screen swipes, button pushes), that are immediate or recorded in a database, whereby certain patterns are matched in order to make the selection.
US 20150079967 A1 Mullins; Lisa Marie SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO REMOTELY RESTRICT THE USE OF MOBILE DEVICE - A parental control system which allows a user to remotely administrate another user's use of mobile device. The system comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software that is installed on a computer or first mobile device allowing user of the computer or the first mobile device to send, either directly or through third-party service provider, a set of instructions through internet or mobile network; and a second mobile device, which receives the set of instructions and executes the set of instructions on the second mobile device. The set of instructions include at least time or duration the second mobile device is incapable of sending or receiving text message or phone calls and once the time or duration has expired the second mobile device is re-enabled and capable of sending or receiving text message or phone calls. When software on the second mobile device detects that the second mobile device is moving above a preset speed, it prevents the second mobile device from sending or receiving text messages or making or receiving phone calls.
US 20130311926 A1 Keegan; Christopher M. et al. USER INSTALLED APPLICATIONS IN A PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETER DISPLAY DEVICE - A physiological parameter display device displays data representing the current values of one or more physiological parameters of a patient. The device has an operating system that does not allow multiple-program execution. A program runs on the operating system. The program provides functionality that gives a user of the device an ability to install virtual applications on the device. In addition, the program provides functionality that gives the user an ability to run the virtual applications on the device while the device continues to display data representing the current value of the physiological parameter of the patient.
US 20150040246 A1 Yuen; Chun Fung et al. CENTRALIZED SELECTIVE APPLICATION APPROVAL FOR MOBILE DEVICES - A system and method for confirming an application change event associated with a device infrastructure of a mobile device, the method comprising the steps of: storing an application authorization list identifying a plurality of mobile applications, the application authorization list being remote from the mobile device over a communications network; receiving an application authorization request from the mobile device over the communications network, the application authorization request including application identification information; comparing the application identification information with one or more listed mobile applications of the plurality of mobile applications identified in the application authorization list; determining whether the application information matches any of the plurality of mobile applications to produce a decision instruction containing an authorization decision; and sending the decision instruction to the mobile device for subsequent processing of the decision instruction by a mobile agent associated with the device infrastructure; wherein processing of the decision instruction provides for confirmation of the application change event.
US 20130191197 A1 Hamrick; Michael et al. CUSTOMER REWARDS AND FEEDBACK SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS - A system for providing offer codes to customers, the offer codes being associated with rewards in exchange for completion of feedback surveys for a particular business following a transaction between the customer and the particular business. In various embodiments, the system is configured to provide a customer with an offer code for a particular business. In response to receiving confirmation that the customer has completed a qualifying transaction under the offer code with the particular business, the system, in various embodiments, is configured to notify the customer of an available feedback survey. In response to receiving the completed feedback survey from the customer, the system may be configured to provide compensation to the customer, which may be based at least in part on terms and conditions associated with the offer code.
US 9361083 B2 Karaa; Hassen et al. Enterprise management for devices - Installing apps on a device. The device is generally configured to be used in a closed market environment that only allows generally available apps of the closed market to be installed. The method includes determining that the device has been authorized to install apps outside of a set of apps generally available from the closed market and from a set of apps available only to users of a particular enterprise. The method further includes determining that an app, that is not generally available from the closed market, has been verified by a central authority. The method further includes installing the app on the device in spite of the fact that the device is generally configured to be used in a closed market environment.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “… recite a specific technical mechanism for application program detection that addresses technical problems inherent in mobile computing platforms as mobile operating systems typically restrict access to application data, making it technically challenging to detect installed application programs without system-level access, user authorization, or interference with running applications”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
A “specific technical mechanism” is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the amendments.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 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 action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698