DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 04/21/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending are examined hereon.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
With respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are patent eligible because Examiner oversimplifies the claimed invention and overlooks the specific technical improvements provided by the claimed solution and the amended claims, when viewed as a whole, are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific, practical application of technology that improves the security and efficiency of computer systems which is a technical solution to a technical problem that arises specifically within the realm of computer technology that meets the test according to the Courts decision in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. The technical problem it addresses is not an abstract business or organizational challenge, but rather a computer-centric one: how can a server securely provide a client device with the precise functionality needed to process encrypted data, without overburdening the client's resources and without creating a persistent security vulnerability on that device. This combination of steps describes a new and nonobvious client-server interaction protocol. The core of the invention is not the provisioning of a "form," but the on-demand creation and delivery of a transient, purpose-built application. This is a fundamental improvement to the underlying technology of client-server systems, analogous to the self-referential table in Enfish, which was found to be a patent-eligible improvement to computer database technology, not an abstract idea. The present claims do not simply take a fundamental economic practice or longstanding human activity and apply it on a generic computer as the problem of securely and efficiently deploying tailored software functions to a client device for temporary use is a problem that only exists because of the existence of computer networks and resource-constrained client devices. The solution is likewise a purely technical one that reconfigures the relationship and data flow between a client and a server. Therefore, the focus of the claims is on a specific, technical improvement to computer functionality itself and are not "directed to" an abstract idea but are instead directed to a patent-eligible, practical application of technology hence the claims satisfy the first step of the Alice framework.
Further, Applicant is convinced that even if, for the sake of argument, the claims were considered to be "directed to" an abstract idea under Step 1, they are nevertheless patent-eligible under Step 2 because they recite an inventive concept that amounts to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself The claimed invention provides a specific technical solution to a technical problem rooted in computer technology: how to securely provide a client device with the functionality to process encrypted data from a contactless source without compromising the security of the client device or overburdening its resources.
Additionally, Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are not abstract security policy but a specific technical implementation that enhances the security posture of the client-server system as the claimed invention provides a concrete improvement to computer security by assembling and transmitting a "lightweight, fit-for-purpose application" that is "automatically deleted" after its function is performed, the system minimizes the attack surface on the client device since a conventional, monolithic application that resides permanently on a client device is a persistent target for malicious actors who may attempt to reverse-engineer the code or exploit its vulnerabilities and the claimed invention, in contrast, ensures that the application logic for processing the sensitive encrypted data exists on the client device for only the minimum time necessary. This transient nature is a specific technical feature that reduces security risks, a critical consideration in systems handling sensitive data from sources like contactless cards.
The claimed invention provides a direct improvement to the performance of the client device. Transmitting a "lightweight, fit-for-purpose application comprising only the one or more determined functions" is far more efficient than requiring the client device to download, install, and run a large, general-purpose application. This approach conserves network bandwidth, reduces the consumption of the client device's memory and storage, and minimizes CPU cycles. In an environment with a multitude of potential functions, this on-demand, tailored approach ensures the client device operates more efficiently, which is a tangible improvement to the computer's functionality.
Even further, Applicant is convinced that recent guidance clarifies that where claims are directed to a specific technical improvement that enhances the underlying functioning of a computer system, they are patent-eligible.
Examiner fully considers Applicant’s position and considers the argument mostly unclear since the argument relies on improvements related to the client device while the claimed invention is directed to an application server and function performed by the application server.
However, Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s position that the claimed invention is significantly more than an abstract idea because the claimed invention continue to be directed to an abstract idea grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts,” grouping of abstract ideas as the claims relate to providing applications such as forms that needs to be filled out on the user devices based on relationship to functions of business or transaction process including performing mathematical operation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Additionally, the additional element of “encrypted data generated by a contactless card,” also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of providing applications such as forms that needs to be filled out on user devices based on relationship to functions to business or transaction process including performing mathematical operation to encrypt associated data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. As such the Examiner sustains the rejection.
With respect to the instant claims meeting the test according to the Courts decision in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp Examiner fully considers Applicant’s position, but respectfully disagree because Enfish was found to be patent eligible as Enfish focus on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity hence the claims are not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of Alice, but are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table and specifically, claim 17 of the ’604 patent recites: A data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising: means for configuring said memory according to a logical table, said logical table including: a plurality of logical rows, each said logical row including an object identification number (OID) to identify each said logical row, each said logical row corresponding to a record of information; a plurality of logical columns intersecting said plurality of logical rows to define a plurality of logical cells, each said logical column including an OID to identify each said logical column; and means for indexing data stored in said table. As such the court found that the self-referential table recited in the claims is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory which is also supported by the specification’s disparagement of conventional data structures, combined with language describing the invention as including the features that make up a self-referential table, confirm the courts characterization of the “invention” for purposes of the §101 analysis has not been deceived by the “draftsman’s art.” Cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 that is not faced with a situation where general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation, but the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts and as such the court found the claims not to be directed to an abstract idea. As such again, none of the limitation of the instant claims alone and/or as an ordered combination are directed to self-referential table recited which is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory focused on an improvement to computer functionality itself hence the argument in this regard is not convincing.
With respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant is of the opinion that Examiner's rejections are based on an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention, using the claims as a roadmap to pick and choose disparate elements from references that address different problems and propose different solutions hence the cited references fail to teach or suggest one or more of the claimed features since the combination does not, in any way, teach or suggest the central concept of the present invention: the dynamic assembly and transmission of a new, lightweight, fit-for-purpose application that is temporary and automatically deleted.
Further, Applicant argue that neither Chou nor Royyuru suggests taking the next, inventive step of using this information to build a new, executable application and send it to the client device. Their focus is on server-side processing and routing, which is fundamentally different from the client-side application deployment of the claimed invention. Therefore, the combination of references system would still lack the core inventive concept: the dynamic creation, delivery, and subsequent deletion of a lightweight, temporary application on the client device as the Examiner has provided no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make this inventive leap. The combination of these references simply does not lead to the specific, efficient, and secure client-server architecture recited in the amended claims.
Examiner fully considers Applicant’s position and again considers the argument unclear because the argument relies on clam language such as “the dynamic creation… temporary application” that is not present in the instant claims.
However, Quinn discloses dynamically selecting and assembling a lightweight, fit-for-purpose application that includes the one or more functions determined to process the encrypted data and transmitting the lightweight, fit-for-purpose application to the client device by the server. That is, Quinn discloses an application server generates one or more web pages are based on users input and activity at the time of request, transmits and displays the web pages on the user device. (See Col. 2, Lines 20-29; Col. 3, Lines 47-57)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a “Method” (Process). Claims 8-14 are directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (Article of Manufacture). Claims 15-20 are directed to “A computing apparatus” (Machine). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite application (form) provisioning, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and “Mathematical Concepts,” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test since the steps include commercial interactions, managing relationships and mathematical calculations (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)). The use of a physical aid to help perform Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept steps does not negate the Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept nature of the limitations, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a Methods of Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concepts even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts,” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to providing applications such as forms that needs to be filled out to user devices based on relationship to functions for business or transaction process including performing mathematical operation to encrypt associated data. More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 1, as similarly as 8 and 15,
A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive a request from a client device, the request comprising a link and encrypted data generated by a contactless card;
determine, based on the encrypted data, one or more functions to process the encrypted data;
dynamically select and assemble a lightweight, fit-for-purpose application comprising (only the) one or more determined functions; and
transmit the lightweight, fit-for-purpose application to the client device, wherein the application is configured to be automatically deleted from the client device after the one or more functions are performed.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Additionally, the additional element of “encrypted data generated by a contactless card,” also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of providing applications such as forms that needs to be filled out on user devices based on relationship to functions to business or transaction process including performing mathematical operation to encrypt associated data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. Further, the additional element of generating encrypted data also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further describe the abstract idea of application (form) provisioning. That is, although claims 5, 12 and 17 recites further functional steps, each of the dependent claims simply substantiate the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “dynamically selecting and assembling, by the server, a lightweight, fit-for-purpose application…” Although the Applicant’s Specification discloses:
“When the OS 112 receives the URL 106, the OS may dynamically download an account application 151 from the URL 106, and dynamically install the account application 151 on the device.” (Pars. [0022] as similarly as [0024], [0032], [0051], [0056], [0058])
This provides that the user device dynamically downloads and installs application from the server using URL. However, the Applicant’s Specification do not provide a proper description for the full breadth of the claim language. That is, the Specification do not provide that the claimed server assembling a selected application nor the Specification describe what is involved in performing the act of “assembling” or the manner in which “assembling” is performed. Therefore, the Specification does not explain what hardware and/or software with specific steps or procedures, to accomplish the function hence the Specification is insufficient to support the claim language. (See MPEP 2163 (I))
Claims 8 and 15 are also rejected based on the same rational as each recites the same language.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected as each depend on claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the application is configured to be automatically deleted from the client device after the one or more functions are performed.” However, the Applicant’s Specification does do not provide proper discloser of the clime language. That is, the Specification is silent of the claim language and do not disclose the application being deleted from the client device after functions are performed. Therefore, the Applicant’s Specification is insufficient to support the claim language. (See MPEP 2163 (I))
Claims 8 and 15 are also rejected based on the same rational as each recites the same language.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected as each depend on claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn et al. (US 9,069,869 B1) in view of Chou (US 2016/0149870 A1) in further view of Royyuru et al. (US 2012/0317035 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, Quinn discloses: A method, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a processor of an application server, A computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Fig. 2; Col. 3, Lines 31-40)
receiving, by an application server, a request from a client device, (Figs. 3, 9; Col. 4, Lines 34-39 “The web server 202 is an application for serving content across the communication network 120… The web server 202 receives user requests from client device 110 to provide web pages”)
the request comprising a link and encrypted data (Col. 2, Lines 1-4 “Upon the user's request, the user data is encrypted and embedded into a file (e.g., a web page or equivalent.” Lines 11-16 “A user may open a link in the file and the encrypted data is transmitted to the server system.” Col. 6, Lines 45-60)
(Fig. 4; Col. 6, Lines 45-65 “Web server 202 forwards the file 1400 to the data restoring module 220. The data restoring module 220 invokes 460 encryption/decryption module 240 to decrypt the data. Once the user data is decrypted at step 460, server system 130 loads 470 the decrypted data into the online application 600 that is executed on the server system 130 and with which a user was previously working, thereby restoring its state to the point at which the user left it.”)
dynamically (“based on user input”) selecting and assembling (“displays the web pages to a user”), by the server, a lightweight, fit-for-purpose application (“web page”) (Col. 2, Lines 20-29 “The online application generates a page with some or all of the loaded user data, which is then sent to the client device, where it is provided to a user.” Col. 3, Lines 47-57 “An online application comprises an application server 204 (shown in FIG. 2), a plurality of web pages (including both static and dynamically generated), classes, application data, and associated logic for handling user inputs, processing the input data, storing the input data, and retrieving additional data. A web page may use a variety of definitional and programming languages to control how information is presented. The application server 204 generates or retrieves various web pages based on user input,”)
that includes the one or more functions to process the encrypted data; (Figs. 4-5; Col. 4, Lines 44-49; Col. 3, Lines 48-53; Col. 6, Lines 61-67 “Once the user data is decrypted at step 460, server system 130 loads 470 the decrypted data into the online application 600 that is executed on the server system 130 and with which a user was previously working, thereby restoring its state to the point at which the user left it.”) and
transmitting, by the server, the lightweight, fit-for-purpose application to the client device. (Fig. 4; Col. 4, Lines 40-44; Col. 6, Line 65-Col. 7, Line 9 “The online application 600 generates a page with some or all of the loaded user data, which is then sent 475 to the client device 110, where it is provided 480 to a user. The application 600 is restored to the same page or location where the user left off… application page 600 is displayed to a user with the previously entered user data. The user can continue working with the application 600 from where the user left off.”)
With respect to the limitation, “wherein the application is configured to be automatically deleted from the client device after the one or more functions are performed,” which is intended use/functional language of a client device and does not have patentable weight as it describes the intended use of the client device. However, as the claimed invention is directed to a function of an application server, the recitation of the intended use/functional language of a client device does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
Quinn does not explicitly disclose a link and encrypted data generated by a contactless card.
However, Chou disclose a link and encrypted data generated by a contactless card. (Fig. 2; Par. [0025] “In step 201, the processor 132 of the card device 13 generates an application dynamic link program based on an application verification code that corresponds to the application 135 stored in the protected zone 133 of the storage module 131 of the card device 13, and encrypts the application dynamic link program with the reference application key 137.”
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute generation of users data by applications that include links and encrypted data (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 1-4, 11-16) of Quinn in view of Chou in order to provide the users data securely to online server systems to process the users data (Quinn, Fig. 4) and to perform application verification procedures before applications are provided to user devices and executed (Chou, Par. [0024]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Neither Chou nor does Quinn explicitly disclose determining, by the server based on the encrypted data, one or more functions, functions determined.
Royyuru disclose determining, by the server based on the encrypted data, one or more functions, functions determined. (Fig. 4; Par. [0036] “determining the real PAN can comprise decrypting the dynamic PAN using a key maintained by the payment processor system…”)
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute decrypting of the encrypted data received from user devices (Fig. 4) of Quinn, Chou in view of Royyuru in order to process encrypted data before processing users request (Quinn, Fig. 4) and to verify/authenticate encrypted data received to stored data before further processing of encrypted data received from user devices (Chou, Par. [0068]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, Quinn, Chou in view of Royyuru discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Quinn discloses: wherein the one or more functions comprise:
extracting the encrypted data from the link,
decoding the encrypted data, (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 6, Lines 45-60 “Web server 202 forwards the file 1400 to the data restoring module 220. The data restoring module 220 invokes 460 encryption/decryption module 240 to decrypt the data.”) and
transmitting the encrypted data to an authentication server.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Quinn, Chou in view of Royyuru discloses all the limitations as described above. Additionally, Quinn discloses wherein the application is an instant application or a progressive web application. (“web page”). (Col. 3, Lines 53-57 “A web page may use a variety of definitional and programming languages to control how information is presented. The application server 204 generates or retrieves various web pages based on user input,”)
Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn et al. (US 9,069,869 B1) in view of Chou (US 2016/0149870 A1) in further view of Royyuru et al. (US 2012/0317035 A1) in further view of Reed et al. (US 2009/0249076 A1).
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, Quinn, Chou in view of Royyuru discloses all the limitations as described above.
Neither Quinn, Chou nor does Royyuru explicitly disclose:
wherein the request further comprises one or more attributes of the client device,
wherein the server selects the lightweight, fit-for-purpose application based on the one or more attributes of the client device.
Reed disclose:
wherein the request (“link is activated by user”) further comprises one or more attributes (“user agent string”) of the client device, (Figs. 11-12; Pars. [0145] “Connection 1216 may be used to connect to the provisioning server 1230 based upon the address referenced in URL 630. Server 100 may transmit a URL 630 to mobile device 300 via connection 1208 using a URL transmission routine 631. In the exemplary embodiment depicted in FIG. 12, URL 630 is the address of provisioning server 1230. In the embodiment of FIG. 12, provisioning server 1230 hosts installation package 640 for the mobile device software 21… In an embodiment, information about the specifics of mobile device 300 is determined by examining the user agent string. According to this embodiment, when the secure link is activated by user 30, provisioning server 1230 uses a user agent string associated with mobile device 300 to determine the correct version of mobile application software 1212 to send to mobile device 300 via connection 1216. The user agent string (not shown) is sent via connection 1216 to provisioning server 1230.”)
wherein the server selects the lightweight, fit-for-purpose application based on the one or more attributes of the client device. (Fig. 12; Par. [0145] “The version of mobile device software 21 selected for mobile device 300 is based on the device's characteristics and capabilities (e.g., the manufacturer, model, processing capability, memory, and storage capacity). Mobile device software 21 is then sent to mobile device 300 to be installed.”)
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute the data provided by users via user device during application request (Col. 4, Lines 34-39) of Quinn, Chou, Royyuru in view of Reed in order to process received data before presentation to users using proper format on to the user devices (Quinn, Figs. 4-6) and to select user requested applications based on the user devices’ characteristics and capabilities (Reed, Par. [0145]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, Quinn, Chou, Royyuru in view of Reed discloses all the limitations as described above.
Neither Quinn, Chou nor does Royyuru explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more attributes of the client device comprise:
an operating system of the client device,
types of applications supported by the operating system,
versions of software installed on the client device,
a speed of a network connection of the client device, and
a battery life of the client device.
Reed disclose: wherein the one or more attributes of the client device comprise:
versions of software installed on the client device, (Pars. [0118], [0136] [0145] “During the provisioning process, device-type information from mobile device 300 is used to determine the appropriate version of mobile device software 21 to be downloaded via connection 1216.”)
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute the data provided by users via user device during application request (Col. 4, Lines 34-39) of Quinn, Chou, Royyuru in view of Reed in order to process received data before presentation to users using proper format on to the user devices (Quinn, Figs. 4-6) and to select user requested applications based on the user devices’ characteristics and capabilities (Reed, Par. [0145]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, Quinn, Chou, Royyuru in view of Reed discloses all the limitations as described above.
Neither Quinn, Chou nor does Royyuru explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more attributes of the client device indicate the lightweight, fit-for-purpose application is not installed on the client device.
Reed disclose: wherein the one or more attributes of the client device indicate the lightweight, fit-for-purpose application is not installed on the client device. (Fig. 13; Pars. [0145] “According to this embodiment, when the secure link is activated by user 30, provisioning server 1230 uses a user agent string associated with mobile device 300…” [0162] “In step 1332, a determination is made regarding whether the mobile application is present (i.e., installed) on the mobile device… If it is determined that the mobile application has not been previously installed on the mobile device, control is passed to step 1333.” [0166] “In an embodiment, the mobile application includes a Java applet received from the provisioning server. During this step, device-type information received from the mobile device in step 1337 is used to determine the appropriate mobile application to be sent. Information about the specifics of the mobile device may be automatically determined by the provisioning server in this step.” )
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute the data provided via user device during application request (Col. 4, Lines 34-39) of Quinn, Chou, Royyuru in view of Reed in order to process received data before presentation to users using proper format on to the user devices (Quinn, Figs. 4-6) and to select user requested applications based on the user devices’ characteristics and capabilities (Reed, Par. [0145]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn et al. (US 9,069,869 B1) in view of Chou (US 2016/0149870 A1) in further view of Royyuru et al. (US 2012/0317035 A1) in further view of Flitcroft et al. (US 2009/0037333 A1).
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, Quinn, Chou in view of Royyuru discloses all the limitations as described above.
Neither Quinn, Chou nor does Royyuru explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more functions comprise:
receiving a virtual account number from a virtual account number generator and
providing the virtual account number to an autofill service of an operating system of the client device.
Flitcroft discloses: wherein the one or more functions comprise:
receiving a virtual account number from a virtual account number generator (Figs. 15; Pars. [0053], [0079], [0240] “The limited use number is then transmitted to the RAD support server 1506 for issuance to the user via RAD 1504.” [0336]) and
providing the virtual account number to an autofill service of an operating system of the client device.
Therefore, 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 to simply substitute the data provided via user device during application request (Fig. 7) of Quinn, Chou, Royyuru in view of Flitcroft in order to provide processing logic for managing financing (Quinn, Col. 4, Lines 40-49) and to allow users complete payment transactions using secure virtual account numbers during online shopping (Flitcroft, Par. [0240]). ("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious"; In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PGPub Griffin et al. (US 2009/0192935 A1) disclose: a link by a contactless card; (Fig. 4; Pars. [0049] “Alternatively, the application(s) setup may be facilitated by using another NFC chip, wherein, for example, a pre-loaded NFC card issued by the payment provider system 120 or other entity may be pre-loaded with a basic application, account information, URL, and the like, such that, when touched to an NFC enabled mobile device, the information is transferred to the mobile device to permit access to an OTA site where the application/software download can be effected.”
PGPub Tsui et al. (US 2016/0026997 A1) disclose: receiving, by an application server, from a client device comprising encrypted data by a contactless card; (Fig. 14A; Pars. [0019] “In some implementations, the extracted information includes an encrypted value and the encrypted value is transmitted to the server or a third party for the transaction.” [0169] “The data entry fields are thus populated based on data from the proximity based card… where encrypted values are extracted from the card, the process 1400 transmits (1460) the encrypted values to the server or a third party for the transaction.”)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WODAJO GETACHEW whose telephone number is (469)295-9069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00 CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WODAJO GETACHEW/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights