DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/26/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first Office action on the merits on 7/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
The claims filed on 10/30/2025 are examined herein.
Claims 1-20 are pending and original.
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
With regards to Step 2A Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility framework, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite limitations drawn to organizing human or commercial activity. Applicant argues that the claims instead describe how an operating system process automatically manages device operations at the system level to facilitate wireless transactions in a more reliable and efficient manner. Applicant argues the claims provide a technical solution which directly enhances the functioning of the operating system and the electronic device’s wireless communication components (see Remarks, pp. 7-9).
The argument is not persuasive. With regards to representative claim 1, the eligibility of the claim is not self-evident because the claim does not clearly improve a technology or computer functionality. Thus, the claim is ineligible for streamlined analysis and the full eligibility analysis is applied. Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim limitations delineated in the rejection set forth or describe receiving a request for and facilitating a transaction, and the claim therefore recites “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”…”fundamental economic principles or practices”. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the additional limitations reflect a technical improvement is given due consideration under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant further argues that the claims, considered as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of computing devices and the management of wireless transactions. Applicant cites to paragraphs [0014-0016] of the specification in support of the argument that the claims provide an improvement in how the operating system manages resources and communication components, rather than merely automating a human decision-making process (see Remarks, pg. 10).
The argument is not persuasive. The specification, including paragraphs [0014-0016], does not describe the features at a level of detail which would convey a technical improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, the claim language is recited at a high level of generality such that it does not reflect an improvement. With regards to representative claim 1, the claim language is mostly functional in describing initiating and managing a transaction. The claimed “operating system process” limitations are largely result-oriented without reciting how the operating system technically performs the process steps, including receiving, determining, and facilitating. Here, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how the solution to the problem is accomplished; and merely invokes the computing technology at a high level of generality as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, the additional elements do not provide integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Regarding Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework, Applicant argues that the claims provide an inventive concept because they recite non-routine and non-conventional system-level operations which meaningfully alter the way the operating system manages wireless communication and application-level conflicts, providing improved performance, security and reliability. Applicant points to para. [0014-0016] and Enfish in support of the argument (see Remarks, pp. 11-12).
The argument is not persuasive for similar reasons as discussed with regards to Step 2A Prong 2, i.e. the claims and specification do not describe the features at a level of detail which would convey a technical improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed above, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how the solution to the problem is accomplished; and merely invokes the computing technology at a high level of generality as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, the claimed invention differs from Enfish in that it does not provide a specific improvement in computer functionality. The claim does not recite any specific technological improvement to operating system architecture, NFC communication, or device resource management, but merely invokes an operating system process, at a functional level, to receive a request, determine application suitability, and facilitate a transaction. This is mere use of generic computer components to implement a transaction workflow, and not an improvement to computer technology itself. As such, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Regarding independent claims 8 and 16, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons given with regards to independent claim 1 above.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons given with regards to independent claim 1 above.
For the above reasons, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained herein.
35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103
With regards to the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2022/0343317 A1), Applicant argues that Zhang does not disclose “receiving, via an operating system process on an electronic device, a request to perform a wireless transaction.” Applicant argues that in Zhang, the operating system merely transmits an NFC field strength broadcast message indicating proximity to an NFC terminal. Applicant argues that the message does not constitute a request to perform a wireless transaction received by an operating system process, but rather serves as a passive notification to applications that NFC communication is available (see Remarks, pg. 13).
The argument is not persuasive. The claim limitation, subject to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is disclosed by Zhang. The reference discloses that NFC field strength and AID information from a card reader (see paras. 0116-0117) are forwarded through the NFC stack to an OS-level NFC service, which parses the information, determines the relevant card, activates it if necessary, and causes execution of the NFC transaction. Under BRI, the received AID signal that initiates the transaction can be reasonably interpreted as a request received via an operating system process to perform a wireless transaction.
Applicant further argues that Zhang does not disclose “determining whether an application displayed on the electronic device is configured to perform the wireless transaction”. Applicant argues that in Zhang, when the NFC field strength message is received, the device automatically launches a default application. Applicant argues that the automatic launch is not based on any determination by the operating system process of whether a displayed application is configured to perform the transaction. Applicant argues that Zhang relies on a predesignated default application that is always invoked when NFC proximity is detected, regardless of which application is displayed, and no determination as to “whether an application displayed on the electronic device is configured to perform the wireless transaction” is performed (see Remarks, pg. 13).
The argument is not persuasive. Zhang discloses that, after receiving NFC field strength and AID information, an OS-level NFC service obtains the AID list of activated cards in applications and determines whether the received AID corresponds to a card in a given application. If the AID matches, the system pops up that application and executes the transaction; if not, it refrains from popping up the application. Under BRI, this comparison of the received AID against the application’s stored AID list constitutes determining whether an application displayed (or to be displayed) on the device is configured to perform the wireless transaction. Note that the claim language does not explicitly require that the application already be visible at the moment of determination, e.g., nothing in the language restricts it to “currently being displayed”.
Applicant further argues that Zhang does not disclose “facilitating, by the operating system process, the application in conducting the wireless transaction”. Applicant argues that in Zhang, once the default application is launched, the NFC controller and secure element independently handle card emulation and AID routing. Applicant further argues that the system’s role in Zhang is limited to broadcasting NFC field strength and launching the default wallet, without any process-level facilitating of “the application in conducting the wireless transaction” (see Remarks pp. 13-14).
The argument is not persuasive. Under BRI, the reference discloses facilitating, by the operating system process, the application in conducting the wireless transaction. The OS-level NFC service and card reader determining module parses the radio frequency activation and AID information, determines the corresponding application/card, instructs the secure element to activate or switch AIDs, and enables routing of the transaction. This goes beyond merely broadcasting field strength or launching a wallet interface. Here, the operating system actively enables and supports execution of the transaction, which reasonably constitutes facilitating the application in conducting the wireless transaction.
Regarding independent claims 8 and 16, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons given with regards to independent claim 1 above.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons given with regards to independent claim 1 above.
For the above reasons, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained herein.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, non-transitory computer product, or system, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product claim 8 and independent system claim 16. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, via an operating system process on an electronic device, a request to perform a wireless transaction;
responsive to receiving the request, determining whether an application displayed on the electronic device is configured to perform the wireless transaction; and
responsive to determining that the application displayed on the electronic device is configured to perform the wireless transaction, facilitating, by the operating system process, the application in conducting the wireless transaction.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they set forth or describe receiving a request for and facilitating a transaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The electronic device in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 8 and 16 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: electronic device (in conjunction with operating system process and application)
Claim 8: Claim 1 additional elements; non-transitory machine readable medium with instructions executable by a processor
Claim 16: Claim 1 additional elements; memory; processor
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. 0091-0095 about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8, and 16 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2022/0343317 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 16, Zhang discloses a method and corresponding product/device, comprising:
receiving, via an operating system process on an electronic device, a request to perform a wireless transaction (see para. 0123-0126);
responsive to receiving the request, determining whether an application displayed on the electronic device is configured to perform the wireless transaction (see para. 0123-0126, wherein the reference discloses that the wallet application may be popped up in the interface foreground, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the application may already be displayed in the foreground); and
responsive to determining that the application displayed on the electronic device is configured to perform the wireless transaction, facilitating, by the operating system process, the application in conducting the wireless transaction (see para. 0127-0129).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 17, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the application is separate from a default digital wallet of the electronic device (see para. 0127-0128, 0133) .
Regarding claim 3, 11, and 19, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein facilitating, by the operating system process, the application in conducting the wireless transaction comprises: preventing the default digital wallet from launching while the wireless transaction is being conducted by the application (see para. 0021, 0244).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein facilitating, by the operating system process, the application in conducting the wireless transaction comprises: configuring, by the operating system process, an NFC controller of the electronic device to receive a credential for the wireless transaction from the application (see para. 0127-0128, 0131-0132).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the received request corresponds to user input (para. 0133, wherein the user input is switching to a specific application).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the received request corresponds to detection of an NFC terminal proximate to the electronic device (see para. 0127-0129).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Zhang discloses responsive to determining that the application displayed on the electronic device is not configured to perform the wireless transaction, launching, by the operating system process, the default digital wallet (see para. 0127-0128, 0133).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2022/0343317 A1) in view of Wu (US 2016/0019533 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Zhang does not explicitly disclose, but Wu teaches wherein facilitating, by the operating system process, the application in conducting the wireless transaction is for a predetermined time period (see para. 0034, 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/product/device of Zhang to include the feature taught by Wu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because having a time-out period advantageously enhances security (see Wu, para. 0034).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reisgies (US 2013/0109307 A1) discloses a system for presentation of multiple NFC credentials via an NFC baseband in a portable communication device during a single NFC transaction. The system comprises a secure element having a directory of available NFC credentials stored therein, wherein the ordering of the available NFC credentials usually indicates the priority. The system further comprises a pre-determined multiple-credential start Application ID (AID) wherein the directory includes a plurality of NFC credentials after the pre-determined multiple-credential start AID. A method for presenting multiple NFC credentials during a single NFC transaction is also disclosed.
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 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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693