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 10/21/2025 was filed before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. 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 11/25/2024 are examined herein.
Claims 1-20 are pending and original.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
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.
U.S. Patent No. 11,100,511 B2
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,100,511 B2 in view of Moghadam (US 2013/0200146 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4, the claims share substantially similar limitations as reference claim 1 drawn to two mobile applications on a mobile device, launching via a link, a local server on a port, passing the port in a link, and then using the local connection to transfer data between apps. The reference claim does not explicitly recite, but Moghadam teaches: receiving, by a first application executing on a processor of a mobile device, encrypted data from a contactless card (see para. 0034, wherein data read by contactless credit card NFC is encrypted, as known in the art); transmitting, by the first application, the encrypted data to a server for verification (see para. 0036-0037); receiving, by the first application from the server, an indication that the encrypted data was verified (see para. 0036-0037). 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 of reference claim 1 to include the features of Moghadam because a need exists to allow users to easily enter a funding card into a mobile/cloud wallet (see Moghadam, para. 0007).
Regarding claim 3, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 7.
Regarding claim 5, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 6.
Regarding claim 6, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 5.
Regarding claims 8-20, the claims recite product and apparatus claims comprising functional language corresponding to method claims 1-7 and are similarly rejected over the reference claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,676,152 B2
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,152, B2 in view of Moghadam (US 2013/0200146 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, the claims share substantially similar limitations as reference claim 1 drawn to two mobile applications on a mobile device, launching via a link, a local server on a port, passing the port in a link, and then using the local connection to transfer data between apps. The reference claim does not explicitly recite, but Moghadam teaches: receiving, by a first application executing on a processor of a mobile device, encrypted data from a contactless card (see para. 0034, wherein data read by contactless credit card NFC is encrypted, as known in the art); transmitting, by the first application, the encrypted data to a server for verification (see para. 0036-0037); receiving, by the first application from the server, an indication that the encrypted data was verified (see para. 0036-0037). 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 of reference claim 1 to include the features of Moghadam because a need exists to allow users to easily enter a funding card into a mobile/cloud wallet (see Moghadam, para. 0007).
Regarding claim 5, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 7.
Regarding claims 8-20, the claims recite product and apparatus claims comprising functional language corresponding to method claims 1-7 and are similarly rejected over the reference claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,159,285 B2
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,159,285 B2.
Regarding claims 1-4, the claims share substantially similar limitations as reference claim 1 drawn to two mobile applications on a mobile device, launching via a link, a local server on a port, passing the port in a link, and then using the local connection to transfer data between apps. The reference claim does not explicitly recite, but Moghadam teaches: receiving, by a first application executing on a processor of a mobile device, encrypted data from a contactless card (see para. 0034, wherein data read by contactless credit card NFC is encrypted, as known in the art); transmitting, by the first application, the encrypted data to a server for verification (see para. 0036-0037); receiving, by the first application from the server, an indication that the encrypted data was verified (see para. 0036-0037). 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 of reference claim 1 to include the features of Moghadam because a need exists to allow users to easily enter a funding card into a mobile/cloud wallet (see Moghadam, para. 0007).
Regarding claim 5, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the claim shares substantially similar limitations as reference claim 7.
Regarding claims 8-20, the claims recite product and apparatus claims comprising functional language corresponding to method claims 1-7 and are similarly rejected over the reference claims.
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 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghadam (US 2013/0200146 A1) in view of Wang (US 2020/0326953 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Moghadam discloses a method, corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see para. 0057), and corresponding computing apparatus with processor/memory (see para. 0056), comprising:
receiving, by a first application executing on a processor of a mobile device, encrypted data from a contactless card (see para. 0034, wherein data read by contactless credit card NFC is encrypted, as known in the art);
transmitting, by the first application, the encrypted data to a server for verification (see para. 0036-0037);
receiving, by the first application from the server, an indication that the encrypted data was verified (see para. 0036-0037);
Moghadam does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches:
initiating, by the first application, a local server on a port (see para. 0052);
generating, by the first application, a link directed to a second application executing on the processor, wherein a parameter of the link comprises the port (see para. 0021, 0052); and
accessing, by a mobile operating system (OS) executing on the processor, the second application based on the link (see para. 0057).
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, and apparatus of Moghadam to include the features of Wang. The combination teaches the claim limitation “based on the received verification” because the wallet application may be used/launched after a card is added.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to launch the application and avoid erroneous redirection to a download page (see Wang, para. 0012).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Wang teaches receiving, by the first application, a unique identifier of the second application, wherein the generated link is based on the unique identifier (see para. 0021, 0052).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Wang teaches registering by the first application, the local server and/or the first application as a background task with the mobile OS (see para. 0047, wherein the first app remains active while invoking the second app to start a local socket in the background).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Wang teaches wherein the port is selected by the first application from a plurality of ports (see para. 0053).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghadam (US 2013/0200146 A1) in view of Wang (US 2020/0326953 A1), further in view of van Elsas (US 2014/0075428 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Wang teaches opening a URI using a system API (0034). However, Moghadam and Wang do not explicitly disclose, but van Elsas teaches: validating, by the first application using an application programming interface (API) of the mobile OS, at least a portion of the link (see para. 0038).
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 of Moghadam further to include the feature of van Elsas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to determine whether a custom URL scheme can be opened (see van Elsas, para. 0038).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. This is subject to filing of a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claims 4, 11, and 18, considered as a whole and in ordered combination. Specifically, the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed sequence in which the first application receives data associated with an account from a server and then transmits the data to a second application via a connection with a local server using the port. Wang is directed to invoking an application and confirming launch by using a URI and port-based local connection to determine whether the second application was successfully invoked, but does not teach or suggest using the connection to deliver server-returned account data from the first application to the second application.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are also allowable over the prior art by virtue of dependence on claims 4, 11, or 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Isaacs (US 2013/0226991 A1) discloses techniques for rendering a webview in a host application. A webview in a host application is identified, the webview including at least one function call to a first function. Additionally, one or more application-specific URL values corresponding to a URL command scheme for the host application are identified. A URL scheme object is populated with the identified one or more application-specific URL values, the populated URL scheme object including a function definition for the first function that is associated with a first one of the one or more application-specific URL values. The populated URL scheme object is then inserted into the identified webview, such that when the webview is rendered and one of the at least one function calls is made, the function definition in the inserted URL scheme object is executed to transmit a request to an address portion of the first application-specific URL value.
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