DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 12/11/25. Claims 1, 13 and 20 were amended. Claim 5 was cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of amendments that are substantive. Per example, amended claim 1 recites additional elements (e.g.: “receiving, during a pending transaction, real-time sensor data from one or more sensors of the hardware device, the real-time sensor data comprising at least the location data and additional sensor data captured during the transaction”) which necessitate reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Examiner’s Notes
Prior art of record include US 20180082391 A1 (Brody) updateable electronic digital assets will or trust method and systems with real time access for updated designated will or trust elements, US 20170177881 A1 (Krishna) dynamic security questions in electronic account management, and US 20150150104 A1 (Melzer) dynamic security question generation.
combination of Brody, Krishna and Melzer teach,
receiving, during a pending transaction, real-time sensor data from one or more sensors of the hardware device, the real-time sensor data comprising at least the location data and additional sensor data captured during the transaction;
in response to the known location of the user not matching the location of the transaction:
generating a security question based on the real-time location data the security question requesting the user to identify a location corresponding to the real-time location data;
prompting the user for a response to the security question; [[and]] verifying an identity of the user based on whether the user's response identifies the location corresponding to the real-time location data
denying the transaction in response to determining that the user's response does not identify the location corresponding to the real-time location data; and
allowing the transaction to proceed in response to determining that the location of the transaction is within a threshold distance of the known location or that the user's response corresponds to the real- time location data.
however, none of the references, individually or in combination, teach,
in response to detecting that the user is performing a transaction at a third party:
determining a known location associated with the location sensor, the known location comprising a location that the user has visited a threshold number of times within a predetermined period;
receiving, by the hardware device, transaction data associated with a transaction request of the user involving the third party while a transaction is being performed but prior to the transaction being completed, the transaction data comprising a location of the transaction.
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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite an apparatus (claims 1-4 and 6-12), a process (claims 13-19), and an article of manufacture (claim 20). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of participant’s location based transaction authorization, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
An apparatus, comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
track a user's location using location data captured by a location sensor of a hardware device;
receive, during a pending transaction, real-time sensor data from one or more sensors of the hardware device, the real-time sensor data comprising at least the location data and additional sensor data captured during the transaction;
in response to detecting that the user is performing a transaction at a third party:
determine a known location associated with the location sensor, the known location comprising a location that the user has visited a threshold number of times within a predetermined period;
receive transaction data associated with a transaction request of the user involving the third party while a transaction is being performed but prior to the transaction being completed, the transaction data comprising a location of the transaction; and
in response to the known location of the user not matching the location of the transaction:
generate a security question based on the real-time location data the security question requesting the user to identify a location corresponding to the real-time location data;
prompt the user for a response to the security question;
verify an identity of the user based on whether the user's response identifies the location corresponding to the real-time location data;
deny the transaction in response to determining that the user's response does not identify the location corresponding to the real-time location data; and
allow the transaction to proceed in response to determining that the location of the transaction is within a threshold distance of the known location or that the user's response corresponds to the real-time location data.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“An apparatus, comprising”, “a processor”, “a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “apparatus, “processor”, “memory” are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
“[track … location data] captured by a location sensor of a hardware device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the location data “captured by a location sensor of a hardware device” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“[real-time] sensor [data] from one or more sensors of the hardware device” and “[additional] sensor [data] captured”. This is no more than “apply it” as the real-time “sensor” data “from one or more sensors” and additional “sensor” data “captured” are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 2 and 14 recited “determine a custom setting for the hardware device, and the custom setting comprises a wallpaper selected for the hardware device” and “verify an identity of the user making the transaction in response to the user correctly identifying an image corresponding to the wallpaper”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“determine a custom setting for the hardware device, and the custom setting comprises [… for] the hardware device”. This is no more than “apply it” as “determine a custom setting for the hardware device, and the custom setting comprises [… for] the hardware device” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 3 and 15 recited “display a plurality of different images and to receive an identification of the wallpaper from the plurality of different images by the user”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“display a plurality of different images”. This is no more than “apply it” as “display a plurality of different images” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 4 and 16 recited “wherein the wallpaper comprises a historical wallpaper previously selected for the hardware device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the hardware device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “hardware device” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 6 and 17 recited “deny the transaction in response to detecting that the user used an application that can be used to determine the response to the prompt prior to providing the response to the prompt”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the user used an application that can be used to determine the response to the prompt prior to providing the response to the prompt”. This is no more than “apply it” as the “user used an application that can be used to determine the response to the prompt prior to providing the response to the prompt” is claimed at a high level of generality, receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results. This is also general linking as the “application that can be used to determine the response to the prompt” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 7 and 18 recited “access one or more passwords securely stored by a third-party password manager in response to confirming that the user's response to the prompt corresponds to the location data” and “login to one or more online accounts associated with the one or more passwords”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“[access …] securely stored by a third-party password manager” and “login to one or more online accounts associated with the one or more passwords”. This is no more than “apply it” as “securely stored by a third-party password manager” and “login to one or more online accounts associated with the one or more passwords” are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 10 recited “determine an application history for the hardware device and to verify an identity of the user making the transaction in response to the user correctly identifying a predefined number of recently used applications installed on the hardware device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the hardware device” and “recently used applications installed on the hardware device“. This is no more than “apply it” as the “hardware device” and “recently used applications installed on the hardware device“ are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 11 recited “determine an application history for the hardware device and to verify an identity of the user making the transaction in response to the user correctly identifying one or more applications installed on the hardware device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the hardware device” and “one or more applications installed on the hardware device“. This is no more than “apply it” as the “hardware device” and “one or more applications installed on the hardware device“ are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 12 recited “determine an application history for the hardware device and to verify an identity of the user making the transaction in response to the user correctly identifying one or more applications previously deleted from the hardware device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the hardware device” and “one or more applications previously deleted from the hardware device“. This is no more than “apply it” as the “hardware device” and “one or more applications previously deleted from the hardware device“ are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 19 recited “determining an application history for the hardware device and verifying an identity of the user in response to the user correctly identifying one or more of a predefined number of recently used applications, one or more applications installed on the hardware device, and one or more applications previously deleted from the hardware device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the hardware device” and “a predefined number of recently used applications, one or more applications installed on the hardware device, and one or more applications previously deleted from the hardware device“. This is no more than “apply it” as the “hardware device” and “a predefined number of recently used applications, one or more applications installed on the hardware device, and one or more applications previously deleted from the hardware device“ are claimed at a high level of generality, receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of participant’s location based transaction authorization, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 8 and 9, recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
References made of record, not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
US 20180082391 A1 (Brody) updateable electronic digital assets will or trust method and systems with real time access for updated designated will or trust elements,
US 20170177881 A1 (Krishna) dynamic security questions in electronic account management, and
US 20150150104 A1 (Melzer) dynamic security question generation
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 February 5, 2026