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 5/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The use of the term “QR code”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. (e.g. QR code®).
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
In the event that a registered mark is a "symbol or device" depicted in a drawing, either the brief description of the drawing or the detailed description of the drawing should specify that the "symbol or device" is a registered mark of Company X. The owner of a mark may be identified in the specification. (e.g. QR code is a registered mark of Denso Wave Incorporated). See MPEP 608.01(v).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-8, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 20 recite “QR code”. The term “QR code”, is a trade name or a mark used in commerce. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. (e.g. QR code®).
Claim 12 recites in line 3 “an app store”. It appears the claim language should be “the app store” for proper antecedent basis.
In claim 17, the space between the limitations of “with the mobile device, receiving an input from a user to download the app onto the mobile device using the app store;” and “with the mobile device, automatically opening the app on the mobile device and displaying the app page generated from the UI template on the mobile device;” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the app on the mobile device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that the preamble recites “a system for download and displaying a mobile application”. However, there is no active step of having downloaded the app to the mobile phone. As such, it is unclear how the app on the mobile device is used if it has not yet been downloaded since the system is for downloading an app. Please clarify. As such, it appears that claim 1 is incomplete for omitting essential steps (e.g. downloading the app to the mobile device), such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Furthermore, the claim recites that the app is used so that the mobile device opens the link to the app page. As such, since it is not clear when the app is actually downloaded or how it’s downloaded, it is not clear how the app page relates to the app itself. For example, is an app page a website/homepage to download the app? Please clarify. If so, then it is unclear how the app would be used to link to a page to download itself. Please clarify.
Claim 4 recites “determine a manufacturer of the mobile device (20) that has scanned the QR code (32); and open an app store on the mobile device, the app store being opened based on the manufacturer of the mobile device”. However, it is unclear how the app store relates to the remainder of claim 1. Please clarify. For example, how does the app store relate to the app page, if at all? If the applicant intends that the app is downloaded from the app store, then the claim needs a recitation tie this together. Otherwise, it appears that the steps of claim 4 is unrelated to the steps of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “automatically open the link to the app page from the UI template associated with business ID; automatically open the app on the mobile device and display the app page on the mobile device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim ("the app on the mobile device”). As such, claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as the of claim 1, in that its is not clear how the app page relates to the app itself, since it is not clear when and how the app has been downloaded to the mobile device.
Claims not specifically addressed are indefinite due to their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 recites “with the mobile device (20), downloading and storing the app onto the mobile device.”. However claim 17 recites “receiving an input from a user to download the app onto the mobile device using the app store; with the mobile device, automatically opening the app on the mobile device and displaying the app page generated from the UI template on the mobile device;”. Thus claim 17 already recites that the app is downloaded and stored onto the mobile device. As such, claim 18 fails to further limit claim 17.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph (where applicable) and claim objections (where applicable), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, either singly or in combination, control the mobile device to prevent the mobile device from displaying UI templates associated with business IDs different from the business ID associated with the displayed UI template, in addition to the other limitations of the claims.
Claims not specifically addressed would be allowable due to their dependency.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:00 pm EST.
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 Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876