I got responses from other government officials too. That's why I emphasised the "further review" part. If everyone gets the same response, then yes my understanding is incorrect.
I think you still don't understand how patent system works. Also you didn't seem like you have gone through my blog post which I linked earlier. Let me copy and paste here for your convenience.
Patentability mainly focuses on two things. Novelty and Non-Obviousness. In some countries, the latter part is called as "Inventive Step".
Novelty - The "Novelty" principle asks whether the invention was known to the public "exactly as described" before the filing date of the patent application. Novelty is straightforward. You either invented something or you don't.
Non-Obviousness - The "Non-Obviousness" principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond what's already known to the public.
Determining "Non-Obviousness" is extremely hard. So courts sometimes have to rely on secondary considerations for determining non-obviousness. To quote Federal Circuit which is known for its decisions on patent law, "evidence of secondary considerations may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record".
So "non-obviousness" deals with questions like (1) Is the invention commercially successful? (2) Did others fail before? (3) Are people praising the invention, especially competitors? (4) Did the invention recognize a problem that has never been recognized before? (5) Are competitors trying to copy the invention? etc.
Prior Art - One way or another, all form of invention rely on already known ideas. For example, my "Teleport" button [or "Sign in with Apple" button if you prefer], is an improvement over buttons like "Sign in with Google" and "Sign in with Facebook".
If your invention do not have any prior art, that means you either ahead of its time (e.g. Someone invented an iPhone in the 18th century) OR you are not working on a notable problem i.e. If the problem is notable, then others tried to solve it and failed.
Any publicly available evidence which is close to the invention is called as "Prior Art". In my invention's case, it is WO2014105263A1. Apple copied my work with the help of that document. So from this point forward, the term "Prior Art" refers to WO2014105263A1.
Provisional Rights - "Provisional rights" allow a patent owner to collect damages from the infringers for activities occurring between "the date of the patent application publication" and "the patent granting date".
Patent - A patent is a government license that exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention without the inventor's permission for a limited period of time. This period is usually 20 years. Patent system's main purpose is to encourage innovation. A patented cancer cure is better than not having a cure at all.
Patent Infringement - Patent infringement occurs once the patent get granted. Patent laws are country-specific. Under US law, 35 U.S. Code § 271 states the following:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.
Direct Infringement - It occurs when the main party makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells the invention without the inventor's permission.
The term "main party" depends on the claim language. From the Apple perspective "Sign in with Apple" is a product. From the Developer perspective "Sign in with Apple" is a "medium" for sending mails. The "main party or parties" doesn't need to know that a patent exists in order to be held liable.
Indirect Infringement - Secondary liability, or indirect infringement, arises when a party materially contributes to, facilitates, induces, or is otherwise responsible for infringing acts carried out by the main party.
Induced Infringement - A form of Indirect Infringement where the party "cause, urge, encourage, or aid" the infringing acts carried out by the main party.
As
@cmaier points out my invention lacks "Non-Obviousness" according to Indian patent office. But my PCT application is an omnibus application. Meaning, a single application contains multiple inventions.
Ofcourse I know about openid. In patent law "elements" matter. Apple is trying to "circumvent" my invention. Apple ditched "OAuth" because my patent specification covers that. My patent specification also covers "openid". That's why they cannot go for "openid"
I'm not saying I invented "openid". My invention contains the element "openid". So while narrowing the claim, I can use that element to make my invention "non-obvious".
Yes I was trying to show that I have the "basic" knowledge
.
