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 .
Status of the Claims
Instant application is CON of: US Patent No. 12,236,415 B2; US Patent No. 11,790,343 B2; US Patent No. 11,100,488 B2; and US Patent No. 10,776,770 B2. Claims 2-21 are presented for examination. Examiner has established objections for claims 2, 5, 7, 10-11, 13, 16-17, and 19; and double patenting rejection for claims 2-21 in the instant Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality:
transmitting, using the child application, the request for user data associated with the child user interface component, wherein when the request is received at the child application server the child application server processes the request for user data, and wherein the user data associated with the child user interface component is inaccessible by the host application;
There should be a comma (“, wherein”) between the two instances of “the child application server.” Applicant could amend claim 2 to recite:
transmitting, using the child application, the request for user data associated with the child user interface component, wherein when the request is received at the child application server, wherein the child application server processes the request for user data, and wherein the user data associated with the child user interface component is inaccessible by the host application;
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising transmitting the segmented user data, wherein when the segmented user data is transmitted as encrypted with a security model of the child application, the segmented user data is transmitted to the child application server.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “further comprising”; the word “with” could be replaced with “according to”; and “to the child application server” could be placed earlier in the claim and the second instance of “the segmented user data is transmitted” and the word “when” could be deleted. Applicant could amend claim 5 to recite:
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: transmitting the segmented user data to the child application server, wherein [[when]] the segmented user data is transmitted as encrypted [[with]] according to a security model of the child application
Claims 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising initiating a checkout payment transaction or a credit application via an interface element presented with displaying of the segmented user data.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “further comprising” and the bolded “of” could be deleted. Applicant could amend claim 7 to recite:
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: initiating a checkout payment transaction or a credit application via an interface element presented with displaying [[of]] the segmented user data.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (New) A user device, comprising:
. . .
one or more processors coupled to the memory and the display, wherein when executed by the one or more processors, the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
invoking, using a host application, a child application executed on an electronic device, wherein the child application is configured to receive personal information provided by an end user, wherein the personal information is inaccessible by the host application, wherein the host application is associated with a host server distinct from a child application server associated with the child application, and wherein the child application is embedded in the host application;
. . .
transmitting, using the child application, the request for user data associated with the child user interface component, wherein when the request is received at the child application server the child application server processes the request for user data, and wherein the user data associated with the child user interface component is inaccessible by the host application;
It appears that “a user device” and “an electronic device” are one and the same. Further, it seems that “comprising” should be used instead of “including.” Still further, there should be a comma (“, wherein”) between the two instances of “the child application server.” Applicant could amend claim 10 to recite:
10. (New) A user device, comprising:
. . .
one or more processors coupled to the memory and the display, wherein when executed by the one or more processors, the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
invoking, using a host application, a child application executed on the user device, wherein the child application is configured to receive personal information provided by an end user, wherein the personal information is inaccessible by the host application, wherein the host application is associated with a host server distinct from a child application server associated with the child application, and wherein the child application is embedded in the host application;
. . .
transmitting, using the child application, the request for user data associated with the child user interface component, wherein when the request is received at the child application server, wherein the child application server processes the request for user data, and wherein the user data associated with the child user interface component is inaccessible by the host application;
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
transmitting the segmented user data, wherein when the segmented user data is transmitted as encrypted with a security model of the child application, the segmented user data is transmitted to the child application server.
The word “with” could be replaced with “according to”; and “to the child application server” could be placed earlier in the claim and the second instance of “the segmented user data is transmitted” and the word “when” could be deleted. Applicant could amend claim 11 to recite:
transmitting the segmented user data to the child application server, wherein [[when]] the segmented user data is transmitted as encrypted [[with]] according to a security model of the child application
Claims 13 is objected to because of the following informality:
initiating a checkout payment transaction or a credit application via an interface element presented with displaying of the segmented user data.
The bolded “of” could be deleted. Applicant could amend claim 13 to recite:
initiating a checkout payment transaction or a credit application via an interface element presented with displaying [[of]] the segmented user data.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
16. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user device, cause the user device to perform operations including:
invoking, using a host application, a child application executed on an electronic device, wherein the child application is configured to receive personal information provided by an end user, . . . , and wherein the child application is embedded in the host application;
. . .
transmitting, using the child application, the request for user data associated with the child user interface component, wherein when the request is received at the child application server the child application server processes the request for user data, and wherein the user data associated with the child user interface component is inaccessible by the host application;
It appears that “a user device” and “an electronic device” are one and the same. Further, it seems that “comprising” should be used instead of “including.” Still further, there should be a comma (“, wherein”) between the two instances of “the child application server.” Applicant could amend claim 16 to recite:
16. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user device, cause the user device to perform operations comprising:
invoking, using a host application, a child application executed on a user device, wherein the child application is configured to receive personal information provided by an end user, . . . , and wherein the child application is embedded in the host application;
. . .
transmitting, using the child application, the request for user data associated with the child user interface component, wherein when the request is received at the child application server, wherein the child application server processes the request for user data, and wherein the user data associated with the child user interface component is inaccessible by the host application;
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
when executed by one or more processors of a user device, the instructions cause the user device to perform operations including transmitting the segmented user data, wherein when the segmented user data is transmitted as encrypted with a security model of the child application, the segmented user data is transmitted to the child application server.
There should be a definite article in front of “one or more processors” and “user device”; the word “with” could be replaced with “according to”; and “to the child application server” could be placed earlier in the claim and the second instance of “the segmented user data is transmitted” and “when” could be deleted. Applicant could amend claim 11 to recite:
when executed by the one or more processors of [[a]] the user device, the instructions cause the user device to perform operations including transmitting the segmented user data to the child application server, wherein [[when]] the segmented user data is transmitted as encrypted [[with]] according to a security model of the child application
Claims 19 is objected to because of the following informality:
when executed by one or more processors of a user device, the instructions cause the user device to perform operations including: initiating a checkout payment transaction or a credit application via an interface element presented with displaying of the segmented user data.
There should be a definite article in front of “one or more processors” and “user device”; and the bolded “of” could be deleted. Applicant could amend claim 13 to recite:
when executed by the one or more processors of [[a]] the user device, the instructions cause the user device to perform operations including: initiating a checkout payment transaction or a credit application via an interface element presented with displaying [[of]] the segmented user data.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 12,236,415 B2; over claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 11,790,343 B2; over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,100,488 B2; and over claims 1-54 of US Patent No. 10,776,770 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are obvious over the reference claims.
Patent Eligibility under § 101
The following claim limitations found in independent claims 2, 10, and 16, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application:
invoking, using a host application, a child application executed on an electronic device, wherein the child application is configured to receive personal information provided by an end user, wherein the personal information is inaccessible by the host application, wherein the host application is associated with a host server distinct from a child application server associated with the child application, and wherein the child application is embedded in the host application;
transmitting, using the child application, the request for user data associated with the child user interface component, wherein when the request is received at the child application server the child application server processes the request for user data, and wherein the user data associated with the child user interface component is inaccessible by the host application;
segmenting the user data to generate host user data and segmented user data, the segmented user data including the personal information; and
displaying the segmented user data such that segmentation prevents the segmented user data associated with the personal information from being exposed to the host application.
Patent Art under § 102 and § 103
The closest prior art reference located by Examiner – Lambert (US 2017/0061138 A1) – shows generally a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for integrating data from a remote server with a client application. The prior art fails to teach the following limitations present in independent claims 2, 10, and 16 – alone or in combination with other references – as an ordered combination of steps with other claim steps:
invoking, using a host application, a child application executed on an electronic device, wherein the child application is configured to receive personal information provided by an end user, wherein the personal information is inaccessible by the host application, wherein the host application is associated with a host server distinct from a child application server associated with the child application, and wherein the child application is embedded in the host application;
transmitting, using the child application, the request for user data associated with the child user interface component, wherein when the request is received at the child application server the child application server processes the request for user data, and wherein the user data associated with the child user interface component is inaccessible by the host application;
segmenting the user data to generate host user data and segmented user data, the segmented user data including the personal information; and
displaying the segmented user data such that segmentation prevents the segmented user data associated with the personal information from being exposed to the host application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seaward (US 9,825,962 B2) discloses: “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for sharing information. The methods, systems, and apparatus include actions of receiving user information entered by a user through a user interface and generating a user profile based at least on the user information. Additional actions include receiving an identification of a particular storage provider location from the user through the user interface, storing the user profile at the particular storage provider location, and receiving privacy settings from the user. Additional actions include receiving a request from the user to access a network resource associated with a particular user information consumer. Further actions include obtaining the user profile from the particular storage provider location, generating a user information collection including at least a portion of the user information from the user profile, and providing the generated user information collection to the particular user information consumer.”
Lambert (WO 2016003525 A2) discloses: “The method involves segmenting the data object into data packets, including a first data packet and a second data packet. Different secure storage locations for the first and second data packets are specified. The first and second data packets are transmitted to, and stored in, the corresponding data storage locations specified for them. A secure storage location for an invalid data packet that is different from the storage location specified for the first data packet is specified. The invalid data packet is securely transmitted to, and stored in, the data storage location specified for it.”
Goldstein, Melissa M., et al. "Data segmentation in electronic health information exchange: Policy considerations and analysis." (2010).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10 am - 6 pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691