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 .
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12190377. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Do the Claims Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 1 recites an apparatus (product), which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 10 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 17 recites an apparatus (product), which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations that are denote newly added claim limitations:
Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite a computing device configured for providing access to restricted data associated with one or more data transfers, the computing device comprising: a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions embodied thereon; and one or more hardware processors configured to execute the instructions to: provide, to a computing device in an unauthenticated state, real-time restricted data associated with an authorized restricted data access request, the authorized restricted data access request comprising data associated with a device authorization token granting the computing device authenticated access to the real-time restricted data when the computing device is in an unauthenticated state, the real-time restricted data being data that, absent the device authorization token, can only be accessed by a computing device in an authenticated state, the data associated with the device authorization token indicating that the computing device is authorized to receive the real-time restricted data; provide a data transfer prompt; in response to a positive response to the data transfer prompt, provide the computing device with a data transfer completion prompt to initiate conducting a related authenticated data transfer based on the provided real-time restricted data; and generate, using intelligent deep linking, pre-populated data transfer details for conducting the related authenticated data transfer on the computing device using a local platform or on a remote device using a remote platform. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve trading. The claims are also commercial interactions, such as sales activities and business relations. The claims are also mental processes, capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computing device, non-transient computer readable storage medium, one or more hardware processors, one or more processors, device authorization token, local platform, remote device, data transfer prompt, and remote platform. The additional elements of a computing device, non-transient computer readable storage medium, one or more hardware processors, one or more processors, device authorization token, local platform, remote device, data transfer prompt, and remote platform, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a computing device, non-transient computer readable storage medium, one or more hardware processors, one or more processors, device authorization token, local platform, remote device, data transfer prompt, and remote platform) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer componen. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: obtain the device authorization token based on an indication that the computing device is associated with a customer of an institution, or based on an indication that the computing device is associated with a non-customer authorized to receive the real-time restricted data from the institution. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, device authorization token, and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: in response to a determination that the computing device is configured to conduct the related authenticated data transfer, generate a local set of pre-populated data transfer details for completing the related authenticated data transfer on the computing device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: identify a remote device configured to conduct the related data transfer and on which a user associated with the computing device is known to have been previously authenticated; generate a remote set of pre-populated data transfer details for conducting the related authenticated data transfer on the remote device; provide the remote set of pre-populated data transfer details to the remote device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, remote device, and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: display, at a display associated with the computing device, a visual representation associated with the real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, device authorization token, remote device, and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of display and visual representation are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: provide the data transfer prompt as a visual data transfer indicator on a display associated with the computing device; in response to a positive selection of the visual data transfer indicator, provide a data transfer completion prompt on the display to initiate conducting a related authenticated data transfer based on the provided real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of display and data transfer completion prompt are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: provide, via a speaker associated with the computing device, an audio summary of the real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, speaker and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above.
Claim 8 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: provide the data transfer prompt as a data transfer audio prompt; in response to a positive audio response to the data transfer audio prompt, provide a data transfer completion audio prompt via a speaker associated with the computing device to initiate conducting a related authenticated data transfer based on the provided real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, speaker and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of data transfer prompt and data transfer audio prompt are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the instructions to: transmit, to a restricted data access server, the authorized restricted data access request specifying the real-time restricted data for which access is requested; and receive, from the restricted data access server, the real-time restricted data associated with the authorized restricted data access request. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of one or more hardware processors, srestricted data access server are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above
Claim 11 recites further comprising: obtaining the device authorization token based on an indication that the computing device is associated with a customer of an institution, or based on an indication that the computing device is associated with a non-customer authorized to receive the real-time restricted data from the institution. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of the device authorization token, and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 12 recites further comprising: in response to a determination that the computing device is configured to conduct the related authenticated data transfer, generating a local set of pre-populated data transfer details for completing the related authenticated data transfer on the computing device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of the computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 13 recites further comprising: identifying a remote device configured to conduct the related data transfer and on which a user associated with the computing device is known to have been previously authenticated; generating a remote set of pre-populated data transfer details for conducting the related authenticated data transfer on the remote device; and providing the remote set of pre-populated data transfer details to the remote device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of the remote device and computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 14 recites further comprising: displaying, at a display associated with the computing device, a visual representation associated with the real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of display and visual representation are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 15 recites further comprising: providing the data transfer prompt as a visual data transfer indicator on a display associated with the computing device; and in response to a positive selection of the visual data transfer indicator, providing a data transfer completion prompt on the display to initiate conducting a related authenticated data transfer based on the provided real-time restricted data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of visual data transfer indicator, a display and data transfer completion prompt, and are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interface (GUI) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 16 recites further comprising: transmitting, to a restricted data access server, the authorized restricted data access request specifying the real-time restricted data for which access is requested; and receiving, from the restricted data access server, the real-time restricted data associated with the authorized restricted data access request. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 10, and the additional elements of restricted data access server are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 10 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 10, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein the method further comprises: in response to a determination that the computing device is configured to conduct the related authenticated data transfer, generating a local set of pre-populated data transfer details for completing the related authenticated data transfer on the computing device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 17, and the additional elements of the computing device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 17 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 17, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the method further comprises: transmitting, to a restricted data access server, the authorized restricted data access request specifying the real-time restricted data for which access is requested; and receiving, from the restricted data access server, the real-time restricted data associated with the authorized restricted data access request. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 17, and the additional elements of restricted data access server are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 17 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 17, supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grassadonia US 20160125369 5/5/2016 G06Q20/10 discloses a money transfer by use of a payment proxy with a payment system that provides restricted data, such as a recipient’s account financial details, with an authorized request for payment using a payment prox, granting access to real-time restricted data, with linked accounts for payment transfer.
Miller US 20180137199 5/17/2018 G06F17/30 discloses a request for OSN data that is not authenticated by any user or account identity, but is “public,” can be made via a connection to some kinds of OSN services. The returned content will only be of content designated by the poster to be publicly viewable. In some cases the authentication mode includes a “public user mode,” indicating that the perspective from which to select or collect OSN data is that of an unauthenticated identity or an authenticated identity that is not the OSN identity specified by the unique identifier. The connection is then initiated with connection properties that include a “public access token” (215-B). The public access token, in this context, may be a token provided by the OSN service which allows connections to be made to the OSN service free of any credentials verification. The public access token may also be issued for an OSN identity that belongs to a service, system, or app (such as the one implementing the described techniques) initiating the connection in accordance with the connection properties (Para. 68).
Multer US 6671757 12/30/2003 G06F13/00 discloses a data transfer and synchronization system with device data transfer during authentication (1770 opens 1754 to allows data access records 1756).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693