5411Notice 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 51-52 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 41-49, drawn to verification system, classified in G06Q20/40.
II. Claims 51-52, drawn to stopping the first transaction, classified in G06Q30/0218.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 51-52 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as stopping the first transaction. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions I and II are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions the inventions are unrelated: Invention I: verification system and Invention II: stopping the transaction.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 41-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 41-50 are directed to at least one statutory category, a system, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 41 is directed to an abstract idea of communicating with for approving or eliminating a plurality of transactions communicated over; further communicating with at least one data aggregator and that process and store archetype data associated with, the archetype data representing profile attributes for one or more users of; wherein the time series data includes information about active operations or passive operations performed; generating a first archetype data including profile attributes defining one or more user profile variables representing a first usage pattern associated with a first user; processing a first transaction associated with an active operation performed by, responsive to the first transaction being consistent with the first usage pattern; approving the first transaction, responsive to a successful authentication of a first local network fingerprint associated with the first transaction against a previously stored fingerprint associated with either the first user or a plurality of unique identifiers associated with results in a second local network fingerprint different than the first local network fingerprint, wherein the fingerprint is stored in a frequency table, in a frequency table, as decayed over an event window based on factors including: a frequency of fingerprint being observed in association with an active operation or a passive operation performed by, a time when fingerprint was first observed, and a time when the fingerprint was last observed, wherein a trust level determined for fingerprint improves hierarchically over trust levels determined for fingerprints as fingerprint is observed more consistently according to the observed frequency over a timeline associated with both (1) the time when the fingerprint was first observed and (2) the time when the fingerprint was las observed; and eliminating a second transaction, responsive to an unsuccessful authentication of the first local network fingerprint associated with the second transaction against a previously stored fingerprint associated with either the first user or. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim include: computer-implemented verification system, the system; at least one server machine a plurality of mobile communications devices and a plurality of computing terminals over a communications network communicated over the communication network; the server machine and data storage media that process and; the plurality of mobile communications devices; one or more users of the plurality of mobile communications devices; the server machine a first mobile communications device, by the first mobile communications device connected to a first local network; the server machine; the server machine; the first local network is uniquely determined based on application of a hash algorithm to plurality of network elements in the first local network, such that addition or removal of at least one network element from the first local network results in a second local network different than the first local network, the first local network fingerprint being stored that includes most frequent network fingerprints associated with the first user or the first mobile communications device of the first local network by the first mobile communications device, the first local network the first local network, and the server machine; the first local network for other local network as the first local network the first local network the first local network. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. The original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, specification [0086] processor, which can be general purpose. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of computer-implemented verification system, the system; at least one server machine a plurality of mobile communications devices and a plurality of computing terminals over a communications network communicated over the communication network; the server machine and data storage media that process and; the plurality of mobile communications devices; one or more users of the plurality of mobile communications devices; the server machine a first mobile communications device, by the first mobile communications device connected to a first local network; the server machine; the server machine; the first local network is uniquely determined based on application of a hash algorithm to plurality of network elements in the first local network, such that addition or removal of at least one network element from the first local network results in a second local network different than the first local network, the first local network fingerprint being stored that includes most frequent network fingerprints associated with the first user or the first mobile communications device of the first local network by the first mobile communications device, the first local network the first local network, and the server machine; the first local network for other local network as the first local network the first local network the first local network is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
As for dependent claims 42-50, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 41. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to 35 § 101 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. abstract idea of communicating with for approving or eliminating a plurality of transactions communicated over; further communicating with at least one data aggregator and that process and store archetype data associated with, the archetype data representing profile attributes for one or more users of; wherein the time series data includes information about active operations or passive operations performed; generating a first archetype data including profile attributes defining one or more user profile variables representing a first usage pattern associated with a first user; processing a first transaction associated with an active operation performed by, responsive to the first transaction being consistent with the first usage pattern; approving the first transaction, responsive to a successful authentication of a first local network fingerprint associated with the first transaction against a previously stored fingerprint associated with either the first user or a plurality of unique identifiers associated with results in a second local network fingerprint different than the first local network fingerprint, wherein the fingerprint is stored in a frequency table, in a frequency table, as decayed over an event window based on factors including: a frequency of fingerprint being observed in association with an active operation or a passive operation performed by, a time when fingerprint was first observed, and a time when the fingerprint was last observed, wherein a trust level determined for fingerprint improves hierarchically over trust levels determined for fingerprints as fingerprint is observed more consistently according to the observed frequency over a timeline associated with both (1) the time when the fingerprint was first observed and (2) the time when the fingerprint was las observed; and eliminating a second transaction, responsive to an unsuccessful authentication of the first local network fingerprint associated with the second transaction against a previously stored fingerprint associated with either the first user or. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regards to Enfish, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, they made improvement to database technology. Unlike Enfish, the current case is directly to computer-implemented verification system, which doesn't make any improvement to the computer technology. In the current claim limitation, the processor is a generic purpose processor. The applicant has not improved the processor. Therefore, applicant's arguments with respect to Enfish is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 citing Finjan, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the patentable claims in Finjan, the current claims recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as shown in the office action above. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The claimed invention does not recite improvement to another technology or another technical field or the computing device. The claimed invention does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Berkheimer, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are like example 47 of the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility examples, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to abstract idea. The original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, specification [0086] processor, which can be general purpose. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to 35 § 101 technological improvement, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s specification and claims do not describe technological improvements, or a specific improvement to the way computer, communication device and/or machine. Rather, Applicant’s specification and claims describe method for computer implemented verification system. The claims do not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic computing devices. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to McRO, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike McRO, applicant’s specification and claims do not describe technological improvements, or a specific improvement to the way computers store and retrieve data. Rather, Applicant’s Specification and claims described a computer-implemented verification system. The claims do not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic device(s), computer and/or machine. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's arguments alleging the claims are similar to that of DDR Holdings, as they are performed on the internet, this is not persuasive. Applicant's claims do precisely what DDR Holdings explains is fatal to many computer-based patents: "recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet." Id. (emphasis added). Thus, DDR Holdings is readily distinguishable from the present claims. The patent at issue in DDR provided an Internet-based solution to solve a problem unique to the Internet that (1) did not foreclose other ways of solving the problem, and (2) recited a specific series of steps that resulted in a departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the click of a hyperlink advertisement. Id. at 1256–57, 1259. The patent claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet, so DDR has no applicability. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to example 39, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case unlike example 39 has 101 rejections based on the MPEP. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to example 42, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike Example 42, applicant’s claimed invention does not solve a technical problem related to format inconsistencies. Applicant’s claims provide no similar technology improvement to how data is stored and converted, in real time or otherwise. Instead, the process recited in applicant’s claims merely invokes a computer as a tool for carrying out a non-technical process of “verification profiling analytics”. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Berkheimer, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights