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 .
This non-final rejection is in response to the application filed on 10/29/2024 and preliminary amendment filed on 05/28/2025 having claim amendments and amendments to the specification (specification amendments acceptable).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 and 11/17/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 10/29/2024 are accepted.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
A computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a request to provision an account onto the computer system; and in response to detecting the request to provision an account onto the computer system: in accordance with a determination that a set of criteria is satisfied: displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface for provisioning an account via a short-range communication protocol; and configuring a sensor to receive account information for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol; and in accordance with a determination that the set of criteria is not satisfied, forgoing display of the user interface for provisioning the account via the short-range communication protocol.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they
cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation,
judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example, the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating a request to provision an account , 2) evaluating a set of criteria is satisfied and making a judgment to proceed with provisioning; and when the evaluated set of criteria is not satisfied, making a judgement to forgo provisioning.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“A computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions” - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“detecting, via the one or more input devices, a request to provision an account onto the computer system” -these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as they are considered ‘mere data gathering’ iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface for provisioning an account via a short-range communication protocol” and “display of the user interface” - these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“configuring a sensor to receive account information for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol”, “… via the short-range communication protocol” - these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and can be interpreted as using short range communications (the sensor is only recited as ‘configured’ without any specificity concerning how it is configured, and thus is interpreted as ‘using’/applying the sensor. In other words, the additional elements are considered generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (short range communication). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception:
With regards to the following additional elements of:
“A computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions” - these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,. More specifically, these elements apply a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions (execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“detecting, via the one or more input devices, a request to provision an account onto the computer system” -these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as they are considered ‘mere data gathering’ iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface for provisioning an account via a short-range communication protocol” and “display of the user interface” - these additional elements are considered merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically selecting a data source to be manipulated (such as manipulated to be displayed on a display) is an insufficient extra solution activity. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“configuring a sensor to receive account information for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol”, “… via the short-range communication protocol” - these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and can be interpreted as using short range communications (the sensor is only recited as ‘configured’ without any specificity concerning how it is configured, and thus is interpreted as ‘using’/applying the sensor. In other words, the additional elements are considered generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (short range communication). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-17:
Claims 2-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example aside from common types of additional elements present in these dependent claims that were already addressed in claim 1, these claims also recite additional elements including :
“…a selectable object that, when selected, causes the computer system to display a user interface for provisioning …” – These additional elements are considered data gathering, and as explained above, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See “Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”
101 Analysis for claim 18:
With regards to claim 18, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. It is noted that it recites an additional element of ‘non transitory computer-readable storage medium’. However this additional element merely applies a judicial exception to a generic computer that employs generic computer functions/components (storage and execution of steps and producing output based on the execution). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claim 19:
With regards to claim 19, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 18 and 19 of instant application (hereinafter ‘472) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11514430 (hereinafter ‘430) in view of Van Os (US Application: US 20180068313, published: Mar. 8, 2018, filed: Sep. 23, 2016).
With regards to claim 1 of ‘472, claim 5 of ‘430 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘472 except for “a short-range communication protocol; and configuring a sensor to receive account information for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol …”.
Yet Van Os teaches “..a short-range communication protocol; and configuring a sensor to receive account information for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol ..” (paragraph 0327, Fig 9G, 9I: short range communications are implemented (NFC) to accept account information via a tap action and in response to receiving the information, a status message indicating the account is in the process of being provisioned is provided via ‘verifying ownership’ message and then a display with a display component to perform a transfer is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘430’s ability to identify a first context or a different context (not first context thus not satisfying first context) and displaying different displays for provisioning (processing information) a secure credential , such that the provisioning would have included short range communications, as taught by Van Os et al. The combination would have allowed convenient and efficient means for communicating information when performing a transaction.
With regards to claim 18 of ‘472, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 of ‘472 above.
With regards to claim 19 of ‘472, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 of ‘472 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-14, 16, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os et al (US Application: US 20180068313, published: Mar. 8, 2018, filed: Sep. 23, 2016) in view of Rule et al (US Patent: 11222342, issued: Jan. 11, 2022, filed: Apr. 30, 2020).
With regards to claim 1, Van OS teaches a computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 1A: a system that includes a processor, memory and display interface can be implemented), the one or more programs including instructions for:
detecting, via the one or more input devices, a request to provision an account onto the computer system (Fig 9A: a user request to provision a card); and in response to detecting the request to provision an account onto the computer system: in accordance with a determination that a set of criteria is satisfied: displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface for provisioning an account via a short-range communication protocol (Van Os et al, paragraphs 0326, 0327: Fig. 9A: a request to provision an account is detected, and set of verification entry requirements has been detected/collected as collection criteria being satisfied ); and configuring a sensor to receive account information for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol (paragraph 0327, Fig 9G, 9I: short range communications are implemented to accept account information via a tap action and in response to receiving the information, a status message indicating the account is in the process of being provisioned is provided via ‘verifying ownership’ message and then a display with a display component to perform a transfer is displayed);
However Van Os et al does not expressly teach … and in accordance with a determination that the set of criteria is not satisfied, forgoing display of the user interface for provisioning the account via the short-range communication protocol.
Yet Rule et al teaches … and in accordance with a determination that the set of criteria is not satisfied, forgoing display of the user interface for provisioning the account via the short-range communication protocol (column 9, lines 15-30, column 11, lines 64-67, column 12, lines 1-32 , column 13, lines 14-20, Fig 5A, 5B, claim 1 of Rule et al: criteria checked include determining whether there is successful data transfer , and if not display routine can be interrupted with an alert being displayed instead. The alert displayed includes configuring the device having the sensor to be oriented correctly with respect to the card, for subsequent sensor data acquisition/transfer (through instructions and depiction of a representation of the device with a representation of alternative orientation of the card)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Van OS et al’s ability to implement a provisioning process of an account using short range NFC between a device and a card, such that when criteria is not satisfied, the interface is interrupted with a message/notification for how to apply the card to the phone in an alternative orientation (i.e which can encompass including an opposite orientation), as taught by Rule et al. The combination would have allowed Van OS et al to have provided easy to understand instructions explaining where on the device the user should place the contactless card to enable successful data transfer (Rule et al, column 11, lines 40-47).
With regards to claim 2. (Original) The computer system of claim 1, Van Os et al teaches wherein the set of criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the computer system is in a respective location (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 and paragraph 0331 of Van Os et al, when the device is located with the card (via at least tap proximity), then one criteria is satisfied), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 8. (Original) The computer system of claim 1, the combination of Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the request to provision an account onto the computer system and in accordance with the determination that the set of criteria is not satisfied, configuring the sensor to receive account information for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Rule et al was explained to allow data sensor to be configured for subsequent data testing by requesting user orient the device (having sensor) with the card), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 9. (Original) The computer system of claim 1, the combination of Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches wherein the user interface for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol includes directions that include a representation of a computer system and a representation of a physical card (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Rule et al was explained to teach a display of directions of the device and physical card for proposed orientation) and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. (Original) The computer system of claim 9, the combination of Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches wherein the directions … the representation of the computer system and the representation of the physical card (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, Rule et al was explained to teach a display of directions of the device and physical card for proposed orientation), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination explained in the rejection of claim 1 did not expressly address/teach … include an animation of the representation of the computer system moving toward the representation of the physical card.
Yet Rule et al teaches include an animation of the representation of the computer system moving toward the representation of the physical card (see Fig. 4A and Fig 4B, which shows the computer device and physical card transitioning from not together to together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Van Os et al and Rule et al’s ability to provide instructions and depiction(s) to assist /resolve an issue with communication criteria, such that the depiction would have included a depiction of different image frames explaining that the computing device is to be brought in close contact with the physical card, as also taught by Rule et al. The combination would have provided easy to understand instructions explaining where on the device the user should place the contactless card to enable successful data transfer (Rule et al, column 11, lines 40-47).
With regards to claim 11. (Original) The computer system of claim 1, the combination of Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: receiving account information for provisioning the account via the short-range communication protocol; and in response to receiving the account information for provisioning the account via the short- range communication protocol, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface that includes an indication that the account is in process of being provisioned onto the computer system (paragraph 0327, Fig 9G, 9I: short range communications are implemented to accept account information via a tap action and in response to receiving the information, a status message indicating the account is in the process of being provisioned is provided via ‘verifying ownership’ message and then a display with a display component to perform a transfer is displayed).
With regards to claim 12. (Original) The computer system of claim 11, the combination of Van Os and Rule et al teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the user interface that includes the indication that the account is in process of being provisioned onto the computer system, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and rejected under similar rationale.
Additionally, the combination of Van Os and Rule et al also teaches ‘… detecting an event; and in response to detecting the event: displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface that includes a first animation of a representation of a card; and after displaying the user interface that includes the first animation of the representation of the card, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a respective user interface that is different from the user interface that includes the first animation of the representation of the card’ (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 and repeated here for reference, Rule et al was explained (in column 9, lines 15-30, column 11, lines 64-67, column 12, lines 1-32 , column 13, lines 14-20, Fig 5A, 5B, claim 1 of Rule et al) that criteria checked include determining whether there was a successful data transfer , and if not a display routine can be interrupted with an alert being displayed instead. The alert displayed includes configuring the device having the sensor to be oriented correctly with respect to the card, for subsequent sensor data acquisition/transfer (through instructions and depiction of a representation of the device with a representation of alternative orientation of the card), and rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination as explained in the rejection of claim 11, did not specifically address/teach a first animation of a representation of a card…. .
Yet Rule et al also teaches a first animation of a representation of a card…. . (see Fig. 4A and Fig 4B, which shows the computer device and physical card transitioning from not together to together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Van Os et al and Rule et al’s ability to provide instructions and depiction(s) to assist /resolve an issue with communication criteria (such as displaying a first orientation, and then displaying a second orientation), such that each of the depiction(s) would have included a depiction of different image frames explaining that the computing device is to be brought in close contact with the physical card, as also taught by Rule et al. The combination would have provided easy to understand instructions explaining where on the device the user should place the contactless card to enable successful data transfer (Rule et al, column 11, lines 40-47).
With regards to claim 13. (Original) The computer system of claim 12, the combination of Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches wherein the first animation is in a first direction, the one or more programs further including instructions for: after displaying the respective user interface, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a second animation of a representation of the card in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 12, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. (Original) The computer system of claim 1, Van Os et al teaches wherein the computer system is in communication with a depressible hardware input device, the one or programs further including instructions for: during a process to provision the account onto the computer system and in accordance with a determination that a set of account criteria is satisfied (as explained in the rejection of claim 1, Van Os et al was explained to teach the computer system and an application for processing provisioning for the account (such as a transit account in Fig. 9B) when a set of account criteria is satisfied (Fig. 9F: verification complete could be account criteria satisfied). Also it is noted in paragraph 0255, Van Os further explains that the computer system communicates with a depressible element (fingerprint sensor that is also a button) wherein the computer system is in communication with a depressible hardware input device, the one or more programs further including instructions for: during a process to provision the account onto the computer system and in accordance with a determination that a set of account criteria is satisfied (Fig 9K: a communication from the tap is successful which leads to a verification screen ), displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a visual element indicating how to initiate a process to perform a resource transfer via the depressible hardware input device; while displaying the visual element indicating how to initiate the process to perform the resource transfer via the depressible hardware input device, detecting, via the depressible hardware input device, an input (paragraph 0385: a request to provide fingerprint authentication (i.e. such as via the fingerprint input on the fingerprint button can be implemented to execution a provision action)); and in response to detecting the input via the depressible hardware input device, forgoing initiation of the process to perform the resource transfer (paragraph 0407: if fingerprint on the fingerprint-sensor-button is not consistent with registered fingerprint, the resource transfer is not executed/provided/released).
With regards to claim 16. (Original) The computer system of claim 14, Van Os et al teaches wherein the set of account criteria includes a criterion that the account being provisioned onto the computer system corresponds to a first account type (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14, a verification associated with a transit account type can be performed), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. (Original) The computer system of claim 16, Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: after displaying the visual element indicating how to initiate the resource transfer via the depressible hardware input device during the process to provision the account onto the computer system, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Although Van OS teaches as explained in the rejection of claim 14 and claim 1 above, that a resource transfer can be performed via prompt for providing a fingerprint upon a depressible hardware input device (to provision an account), the rejections did not explicitly address Van OS et al teaching that the same process can be repeated a second time for provisioning the account such that: ( detecting, via the one or more input devices, a second request to provision an account onto the computer system; and in response to detecting the second request to provision an account onto the computer system, initiating a second process to provision an account onto the computer system, where the second process to provision an account onto the computer system includes: in accordance with a determination that the set of account criteria is satisfied, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a visual element indicating how to initiate a process to perform a resource transfer via the depressible hardware input device a process to perform.
Yet Van OS explains in paragraph 0080 that the provisioning process could be repeatedly performed again for a plurality of cards (not just for one provisioning process, but repeating the provisioning process again as desired for a plurality of cards).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Van Os and Rule et al’s ability to perform a provisioning process once for a first request via a finger print button element, such that the process could have been repeated for subsequent times for other cards, as also taught by Van Os. The combination would have reduced effort involved with entering, managing and providing card/account data.
With regards to claim 18, Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, the one or more programs including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a request to provision an account onto the computer system; and in response to detecting the request to provision an account onto the computer system: in accordance with a determination that a set of criteria is satisfied: displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface for provisioning an account via a short-range communication protocol; and configuring a sensor to receive account information for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol; and in accordance with a determination that the set of criteria is not satisfied, forgoing display of the user interface for provisioning the account via the short-range communication protocol, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19, Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches a method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a request to provision an account onto the computer system; and in response to detecting the request to provision an account onto the computer system: in accordance with a determination that a set of criteria is satisfied: displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface for provisioning an account via a short-range communication protocol; and configuring a sensor to receive account information for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol; and in accordance with a determination that the set of criteria is not satisfied, forgoing display of the user interface for provisioning the account via the short-range communication protocol, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os et al (US Application: US 20180068313, published: Mar. 8, 2018, filed: Sep. 23, 2016) in view of Rule et al (US Patent: 11222342, issued: Jan. 11, 2022, filed: Apr. 30, 2020) in view of Lim et al (US Application: US 20140074655, published: Mar. 13, 2014, filed: Sep. 7, 2012).
With regards to claim 3. (Original) The computer system of claim 1, the combination of Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches wherein the user interface for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol, … causes the computer system to display a user interface for provisioning an account via a provisioning process … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … includes a selectable object that, when selected, causes the computer system to display a user interface for provisioning an account via a provisioning process that does not require use of the short-range communication protocol.
Yet Lim et al teaches … includes a selectable object that, when selected, causes the computer system to display a user interface for provisioning an account via a provisioning process that does not require use of the short-range communication protocol (paragraphs 0037 and 0038, Fig. 6B: A user could choose to decline short range protocol (via tap) by selecting cancel and the user will then manually enter card details into fields manually ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Van Os et al and Rule et al’s ability to allow a user to provision an account through obtaining data through short range protocol, such that the user can opt to decline the short range data transfer and instead manually enter account information as taught by Lim et al . The combination would have implemented a system that would allow users to efficiently add payment information to an electronic wallet and faster checkouts (Lim et al, paragraph 0006).
With regards to claim 4. (Currently Amended) The computer system of claim 1, the combination of Van Os and Rule et al teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the request to provision an account onto the computer system and in accordance with the determination that the set of criteria is not satisfied, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface for provisioning an account via a provisioning process that does not require use of the short-range communication protocol without displaying the user interface for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol.
Yet Lim et al teaches displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface for provisioning an account via a provisioning process that does not require use of the short-range communication protocol without displaying the user interface for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol (paragraph 0028, 0035-0038, 0050, Fig. 6A, Fig. 6B: if the user does not meet a timing criteria (ref 634) for a tap/short-range communication after selecting ref 620, the interface (ref 632) is interpreted as the communication display) depicting short range communication protocol session is removed from display (not displayed) and a regular form for manual entry (such as via keyboard entry) remains without ref 20 being displayed due to criteria not being satisfied ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Van Os and Rule et al’s ability to identify when a criteria is not satisfied, such that one of the criteria would have included whether the device is capable and allowing a user to manually enter provisioning information, as taught by Lim et al. The combination would have allowed Van Os and Rule et al to have implemented a system that would allow users to efficiently add payment information to an electronic wallet and faster checkouts (Lim et al, paragraph 0006).
With regards to claim 5. (Original) The computer system of claim 4, the combination of Van Os, Rule et al and Lim et al teaches wherein the user interface for provisioning an account via the provisioning process that does not require use of the short-range communication protocol includes a short-range provisioning selectable object that, when selected, causes the computer system to display the user interface for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting, via the one or more input devices, selection of the short-range provisioning selectable object; and in response to detecting the selection of the short-range provisioning selectable object, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the user interface for provisioning an account via the short-range communication protocol (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, Lim et al was explained to teach that short range communication can be invoked via ref 620 of Fig. 6A, and short range interface ref 632 is displayed for provisioning action), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 7. (Original) The computer system of claim 4, the combination of Van Os, Rule et al and Lim et al teaches wherein: the provisioning process that does not require use of the short-range communication protocol corresponds to a provisioning process that provisions an account onto the computer system by receiving account information via user input using a keyboard and/or keypad (as similarly explained in the rejection 4, a user can manually provide input via keyboard), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os et al (US Application: US 20180068313, published: Mar. 8, 2018, filed: Sep. 23, 2016) in view of Rule et al (US Patent: 11222342, issued: Jan. 11, 2022, filed: Apr. 30, 2020) in view of Lim et al (US Application: US 20140074655, published: Mar. 13, 2014, filed: Sep. 7, 2012) in view of Glynn-Udrow et al (US Application: US 2022/0108304, published: Apr. 7, 2022, filed: Oct. 5, 2020).
With regards to claim 6. (Original) The computer system of claim 4, the combination of Van Os et al, Rule et al and Lim et al teaches wherein: the computer system is in communication with one or more cameras (Van Os et al: Fig. 4A: a camera is part of the computer system). Also the combination of Van Os et al, Rule et al and Lim et al teaches … the provisioning process that does not require use of the short-range communication protocol corresponds to a provisioning process that provisions an account onto the computer system by receiving account information (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, Lim et al was explained to teach that provisioning includes allowing a user to enter information via manual means should short range criteria not be met), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … provisions an account onto the computer system by receiving account information via the one or more cameras.
Yet Glynn-Udrow et al teaches … provisions an account onto the computer system by receiving account information via the one or more cameras (Fig. 9: a form for provisioning allows manual entry, but includes an additional option to capture the account information via camera image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Van Os, Rule et al, Lim et al’s ability to provide a form that is capable of manual input entry , such that the provided form includes an additional option/button to enable image capture for provisioning , as taught by Glynn-Udrow et al. The combination would have reduced the time and difficulty of providing information when entering payment card information.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os et al (US Application: US 20180068313, published: Mar. 8, 2018, filed: Sep. 23, 2016) in view of Rule et al (US Patent: 11222342, issued: Jan. 11, 2022, filed: Apr. 30, 2020) in view of Takenouchi (US Application: US 20170061109, published: Mar. 2, 2017, filed: Aug. 23, 2016).
With regards to claim 15. (Original) The computer system of claim 14, the combination of Van Os et al and Rule et al teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the input via the depressible hardware input device, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 14, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a visual element indicating that the input was detected via the depressible hardware input device.
Yet Takenouchi teaches … displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a visual element indicating that the input was detected via the depressible hardware input device (paragraph 0167, Fig. 20, Fig. 21: fingerprint input is detected and a visual element indicating failure condition is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Van Os et al and Rule et al’s ability for detecting input such that a display action is performed upon input detected on an input device, as taught by Takenouchi. The combination would have allowed Van Os and Rule et al to have allowed a user to easily understand a state of how an application is progressing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kahn et al (US Application: US 2015/0348008): This reference teaches managing payment applets via multi device coordination.
Wurmfeld et al (US Patent: 10108827): This reference teaches using an output component to indicate an orientation of an NFC card.
Moghadam (US Application: US 2013/0200146): This reference teaches adding card to a mobile wallet using NFC.
Zhang et al (US Application: US 2022/0343317): This reference teaches providing a guidance interface for positioning an NFC enabled card on a mobile device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
