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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered July 13, 2026 for the patent application 18/996,977.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 7, 9, 12 - 16 and 22 - 27 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 12 are currently amended in the application.
Claims 22 - 27 are added in the application.
Claims 8, 10, 11 and 17 - 21 are cancelled in the application without prejudice or disclaimer.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on May 19, 2025, June 18, 2026 and March 11, 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 13, 2026 with respect to claims 1 – 7, 9, 12 - 16 and 22 - 27 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
A review of the claims and updated search necessitated the rejections below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 9, 12 - 16 and 22 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 7, 9, 12 - 16 and 22 - 27 are either directed to a method or system or computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to apparatus claim 9 and computer readable claim 22. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
( A ) displaying, by a first electronic device, a preview information of at least one card of a second electronic device, the preview information of the at least one card-comprises a preview information of a first card and a preview information of a second card, the first card and the second card both belonging to a first application in the second electronic device, the first card and the second card having different card specifications, the card specifications including at least one of the following parameters:
a card size, a card refresh rate, a card name, or a card description information, the first application is not installed on the first electronic device, and the preview information and card specification information of the at least one card are obtained through a card interface with the second electronic device;
( B ) receiving, by the first electronic device, a first add operation for the preview information of the first card; and
( C ) adding, by the first electronic device, the first card in response to the first add operation.
These limitations without the bolded limitations above, cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
More specifically, these limitations cover performance of the limitations as a fundamental economic practice.
In summary, if claim 1 limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 9 and 10 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
The use of the electronic device, or any of the bolded limitations in claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Similar arguments apply to claims 9 and 22.
Therefore, the above mentioned judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by merely applying generic computer components (bolded elements).
Furthermore, the “displaying” and “receiving” steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering/transmitting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In addition, supported by specification, the computer hardware are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component., see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer is not indicative of a practical application).
Claim 1, limitation ( A ) – ( C ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0046], which discloses “To resolve the foregoing problem, an embodiment of this application provides a cross-device card interaction method. A first electronic device displays at least one piece of preview information of a second electronic device. Pre-view information of at least one card includes preview information of a first card. The first card belongs to a first application on the second electronic device. Then, the first electronic device receives a first operation for the preview information of the first card, and in response to the first operation, sends, to the second electronic device, a first request for adding the first card. Then, the first electronic device obtains card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device. The first electronic device adds the first card based on the card information corresponding to the first card. In the method, element-level cross-device interaction can be implemented between the first electronic device and the second electronic device without installing a same application on the first electronic device and the second electronic device.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( A ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0014], which discloses “According to a third aspect, this application pro-cross-device card interaction method. The method vides a includes: A first electronic device displays a first card of a first application on a second electronic device. The first electronic device receives a first operation for the first card. In response to the first operation, the first electronic device sends a card addition request to the second electronic device. The first electronic device obtains card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device. The first electronic device displays the first card. In the method, the card of the second electronic device may be displayed on the first electronic device, to implement element-level cross-device interaction. In this way, cross-device interaction can be implemented without installing the first application on the first electronic device.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( A ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0147], which discloses “Before the first card management service invokes the card deletion interface provided by the card provider of the device B, if the first card management service has obtained a remote interface proxy of the card provider by using a distributed communication system, the first card management service may directly communicate with the card provider by using the card interface proxy. The remote interface proxy includes the card deletion interface. If the first card management service has not obtained the remote interface proxy of the card provider, the first card management service may first obtain the remote interface proxy of the card provider by using the distributed communication system, and then directly communicate with the card provider by using the card interface proxy, that is, invoke the card deletion interface.“. Similar arguments apply to claims 9 and 22.
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.
Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 22 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims 1, 9 and 22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (bolded elements above) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. In conclusion, merely "applying" the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1, 9 and 22 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 7, 12 - 16 and 23 - 27 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 2 – 7, 12 - 16 and 23 - 27 are further define the abstract idea or further define the extra-solution activities that are present in independent claim 1 thus abstract idea correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity as presented above. Claims 2 – 7, 12 - 16 and 23 - 27 clearly further define the abstract idea as stated above and further define extra-solution activities such as presenting data and transmitting/receiving data.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 7, 12 - 16 and 23 - 27 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 23, these claims merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claim 2 states “in response to the first add operation, sending, by the first electronic device to the second electronic device, a first request for adding the first card; obtaining, by the first electronic device, a card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device; and after the obtaining, by the first electronic device, the card information that corresponds to the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device, displaying the card information corresponding to the first card.”. These steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/analysis, which is a form of insignificant extra- solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Similar arguments can be made for claims 12 and 23.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 24, these claims merely recite, "receiving, by the first electronic device, a second operation for the first card; in response to the second operation, deleting, by the first electronic device, the first card, and sending, to the second electronic device, a second request for deleting the first card; and receiving, by the first electronic device, a deletion complete message from the second electronic device.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar arguments can be made for claims 13 and 24.
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 25, these claims merely provide further detail regarding the processing the card operations, recited in claim 1. Merely stating, “receiving, by the first electronic device, a third operation for the first card; in response to the third operation, sending, by the first electronic device to the second electronic device, a third request for updating the first card; receiving, by the first electronic device, a first card update information that is used to update the first card and that is sent by the second electronic device; and updating, by the first electronic device, the first card based on the first card update information.”. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea. Similar arguments can be made for claims 14 and 25.
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 26, these claims merely recite, "receiving, by the first electronic device, a fourth operation; in response to the fourth operation, sending, by the first electronic device to the second electronic device, a fourth request for querying a card; and receiving, by the first electronic device, the preview information of the at least one card from the second electronic device.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar arguments can be made for claims 15 and 26.
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 27, these claims merely provide further detail regarding the processing the card information on the same network, recited in claim 1. Merely stating “wherein the first electronic device and the second electronic device are located in a same network.". This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea. Similar arguments can be made for claims 16 and 27.
Regarding claim 7, this claim merely add further description to the process of “wherein the preview information of the first card is the same as a card information displayed on the first card, or the preview information of the first card is different from the card information displayed on the first card.”. This amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting as described in reference to claims 1, 10 and 16 (see analysis above). Merely describing the comparing the new claim information does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
As a result, such limitations do not overcome the requirements as described above. Therefore, claims 2 – 7, 12 - 16 and 23 - 27 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 – 7, 9, 12 - 16 and 22 - 27 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H. HOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3461. The examiner can normally be reached on MON. - FRI 10 AM - 8 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, MATTHEW S. GART can be reached on 571-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John H. Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights