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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed June 11, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending and under examination in this case. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17, and 19 are currently amended. Claim 4 is currently canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 11, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding the claims, as currently amended, that the claims recite statutory subject matter -- specifically, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite determining an authentication scheme based on a particular service being requested, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites receiving a request for a service, determining an authentication scheme based on the service requested, authenticating the user, providing the service, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because — for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps to make sure that that service is made available to the correct user and in convenient manner (e.g., biometric input, or password). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
Applicant further argues that the steps recite specific improvements to the computer technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, as currently amended, that nothing in the cited references teaches, discloses, or suggests identify a communication state of the electronic device using the communication circuitry to identify a user authentication scheme for the service.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is directed to vanOs at, e.g., par 274-276 “electronic device receives authorization (e.g., from the user, as described in detail below) to proceed with a payment transaction prior to detecting presence of a field (e.g., an NFC compliant RF field 2002 of FIG. 7A) generated by the contactless payment transaction terminal (e.g., 2000 of FIG. 7A). The authorization is only valid for a predetermined period of time (e.g., up to 30 seconds). If the user places the device into the field after receiving authorization and before the predetermined period of time has elapsed, the device will proceed with the payment transaction (e.g., a payment of funds being solicited by the contactless payment transaction terminal 2000 of FIG. 7A) . . . the device may not receive authorization to proceed with the payment transaction prior to detecting presence of the field generated by the contactless payment transaction terminal. . . . in response to detecting presence of the field generated by the contactless payment transaction terminal, the device determines whether authorization to proceed with a payment transaction is provided”. The “presence of a field” is a state of the electronic device, which is either there – close enough to communicate --- or not as well as authorized to communicate. Between presence and authorization, communicability is achieved.
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 1-3 and 15- 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-3 and 15- 21 are directed to a system or apparatus. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite determining an authentication scheme based on a particular service being requested, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites receiving a request for a service, determining an authentication scheme based on the service requested, authenticating the user, providing the service, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because — for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps to make sure that that service is made available to the correct user and in convenient manner (e.g., biometric input, or password). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(ad)), the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a display, communications circuitries, memory, and processors, merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a display, communications circuitries, memory, and processors to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, a display, communications circuitries, memory, and processors perform the steps or functions of receiving a request for a service, determining an authentication scheme based on the service requested, authenticating the user, providing the service. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of the display, communications circuitries, memory, and processors, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using the display, communications circuitries, memory, and processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of determining an authentication scheme based on a particular service being requested. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the display, communications circuitries, memory, and processors perform the steps of the independent claims. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of determining an authentication scheme based on a particular service being requested. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of the display, communications circuitries, memory, and processors to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-18, and 20-21, further describe the determining an authentication scheme based on a particular service being requested, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanOs et al (US 2021/0192530) in view of Bielamowicz et al (US 2014/0297433).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19 –
VanOs discloses an electronic device comprising:
communication circuitries; (par 7)
memory storing instructions; (par 7) and
at least one processor, (par 7)
receive a first user input requesting use of a service provided through an application (par 274)
based on receiving the first user input, identify a communication state of the electronic device (par 274-276 “electronic device receives authorization (e.g., from the user, as described in detail below) to proceed with a payment transaction prior to detecting presence of a field (e.g., an NFC compliant RF field 2002 of FIG. 7A) generated by the contactless payment transaction terminal (e.g., 2000 of FIG. 7A). The authorization is only valid for a predetermined period of time (e.g., up to 30 seconds). If the user places the device into the field after receiving authorization and before the predetermined period of time has elapsed, the device will proceed with the payment transaction (e.g., a payment of funds being solicited by the contactless payment transaction terminal 2000 of FIG. 7A) . . . the device may not receive authorization to proceed with the payment transaction prior to detecting presence of the field generated by the contactless payment transaction terminal. . . . in response to detecting presence of the field generated by the contactless payment transaction terminal, the device determines whether authorization to proceed with a payment transaction is provided”. The “presence of a field” is a state of the electronic device.)
Bielamowicz discloses, as VanOs does not, and in analogous art, using the communication circuitry to identify a user authentication scheme for the service, and identify a first authentication scheme corresponding to an online-based authentication scheme from among a plurality of authentication schemes registered for user a authentication as the user authentication scheme for the service, (par 50 “different types of personal authentication elements may comprise location information such as a current geographic location of the user (e.g. a GPS fix of his or her mobile terminal), or a proximity of an RF tag of the user (e.g. in an RF card) to the terminal, and/or a detection of local network that a mobile user terminal of the user is currently connected to. In the latter example, this may be to detect whether the user is currently present on the private local network 108 of the bank where he or she is trying to make a transaction, and therefore in the proximity; or conversely to detect he or she is on a different network that is not proximate. The mobile terminal in question could be the mobile terminal 132 the user is currently using to access (or try to access) the access space in question, or another register device the user happens to have about his or her person” . . . also par 58 “if the user presents him or herself at a certain location such as a teller's desk or in front of a teller assisted machine, the relevant terminal may automatically collect one or more authentication elements such as an image of the user for use in image recognition and/or a sample of the user's voice for use in voice recognition”.). Therefore, “location” is a state upon which the authentication scheme based or chosen;
in response to authenticating a user through the first authentication scheme, provide the service through the application (par 26, 31), (claim 1, 18) and
provide the service through the application (par 26, 31), (claim 1, 18) and
based on the communication state of the electronic device being identified as incapable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device:
identify a second authentication scheme corresponding to an offline-based authentication scheme from among the plurality of authentication schemes as the user authentication scheme for the service, (claim 1, 18) and
in response to authenticating the user through the second authentication scheme, provide the service through the application (par 26, 31). (claim 1, 18)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of VanOs with the interface of Bielamowicz in order to obtain more flexible access to services.
Regarding claim 2 -
VanOs discloses based at least in part on signals received via the at least one of the communication circuitry, identify a position of the electronic device, (par 16 ) and
identify the communication state of the electronic device based at least in part on the identified position. (par 16).
Regarding claim 3 -
VanOs discloses identify a distance between the electronic device and the external electronic device, based on a received strength of a signal received via the communication circuitry from the external electronic device, (par 273)
based on the distance being identified as longer than a reference distance, identify the communication state of the electronic device as capable of establishing communication connection with an external electronic device, (par 273) and
based on the distance being identified as shorter than the reference distance, identify the communication state of the electronic device as incapable of establishing communication connection with an external electronic device. (par 273)
Regarding claim 8 –
VanOs discloses based at least in part on the receiving the first user input, identify a received signal strength of each of a plurality of signals received from an intermediate node via the communication circuitry, (par 159)
based on the received signal strength being identified as greater than a reference strength, identify the communication state of the electronic device as capable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device, (par 159, 273) and
based on the received signal strength being identified as less than the reference strength, identify the communication state of the electronic device as incapable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device. (par 159, 273)
Regarding claim 12 –
VanOs discloses identify a data storing scheme
identify a data security scheme related to the service based at least in part on a type of the service, (par 273) and
identify the plurality of authentication schemes based at least in part on the data storing scheme and the data security scheme. (par 275)
Regarding claim 13 –
VanOs discloses a display, (par 7)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: display, through the display, information indicating that the service is available through each of the plurality of authentication schemes. (par 8)
Regarding claim 14 –
VanOs discloses wherein the information includes first visual objects to represent each of the plurality of authentication schemes, (par 275, 279) and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: in response to receiving the user input requesting the use of the service, display, through the display, the first visual objects overlapping on a second visual object representing the service. (par 279, 280)
Regarding claims 15 –
VanOs discloses communication circuitries, (par 7) and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
in response to receiving the user input requesting use of the service, identify the communication state of the electronic device using the communication circuitry, (par 274)
display, through the display, a third visual object indicating for guiding the first authentication scheme to authenticate a user, (par 278-280)
based on the communication state of the electronic device being identified as incapable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device: (par 159,273)
display, through the display, a fourth visual object for guiding to authenticate the user through the second authentication scheme, (par 278-280)
Bielamowitz discloses, as VanOs does not, based on the communication state of the electronic device being identified as capable of establishing communication connection with an external electronic device (claim 1,18):
identify a first authentication scheme corresponding to an online-based authentication scheme from among the plurality of authentication schemes as the user authentication for the service,(par 50)
authenticate the user through the first authentication scheme based at least in part on a user input received with respect to the third visual object, (claims 1, 18) and
in response to authenticating the user through the first authentication scheme, provide the service through the application (claims 1, 18)
identify a second authentication scheme corresponding to an offline-based authentication scheme from among the plurality of authentication schemes as the user authentication for the service, (claims 1, 18)
authenticate the user through the second authentication in accordance with a user input received with respect to the fourth visual object, (claims 1, 18) and
in response to authenticating the user through the second authentication scheme, provide the service through the application. (claims 1, 18)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine VanOs with Bielamowicz in order to obtain more flexible access to services.
Regarding claim 16 –
VanOs discloses wherein the third visual object
wherein the fourth visual object is displayed relative to sixth visual objects respectively corresponding to another remaining authentication schemes from among the plurality of authentication schemes for guiding to the second authentication scheme available in the communication state of the electronic device being identified as incapable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device. (par 278-279)
Note that VanOs in view of Bielamowicz fails to expressly disclose wherein the second visual object is visually highlighted relative to the first visual objects.
However, the differences between one or another object being highlighted or not are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The various steps would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to have one or another object highlighted or not because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17 –
VanOs teaches a display, (par 7) and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
identify an authentication scheme from among the plurality of authentication schemes, in which reference information for the user authentication is unregistered, (par 275-275) and
display, through the display , a visual object indicating a request for input of the reference information. (par 279-280)
Regarding claim 20 –
Bielamowitz discloses based at least in part on a user input received with respect to the first visual object or the third visual object, authenticate the user through the first authentication scheme or the second authentication scheme, (claims 1, 18) and
in response to the user authentication, provide the service in conjunction with the external electronic device. (claims 1, 18)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine VanOs with Bielamowicz in order to obtain more flexible access to services.
Claims 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanOs et al (US 2021/0192530) in view of Bielamowicz et al (US 2014/0297433) and Kim et al (US 2018/0189470).
VanOs in view of Bielamowicz discloses as above.
Regarding claim 5 –
Kim disclosers an illuminance sensor, (par 281)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: identify a brightness around the electronic device through the illuminance sensor, (par 281) and
It would be obvious to combine VanOs and Bielamowicz with Kim for a more secure and flexible method of authentication.
Regarding claim 9 –
Kim discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
based on receiving a second user input regarding the first authentication scheme, transmit information on the second user input to the external electronic device through the communication circuitry, (par 168)
receive, from the external electronic device, a result of a comparison between the information and reference information stored in the external electronic device, or another external electronic device connected with the external electronic device, (par 168) and
authenticate the user based at least in part on the result through the first authentication scheme. (par 168)
It would be obvious to combine VanOs and Bielamowicz with Kim for a more secure and flexible method of authentication.
Regarding claim 10 –
Kim discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
identify the second authentication scheme, in response to identifying a failure to authenticate the user through the first authentication scheme, (par 103)
display, through the display, a visual object corresponding to the second authentication scheme for authenticating the user, (par 163-168)
authenticate the user through the second authentication scheme based at least in part on a second user input received with respect to the visual object, (par 163-168)and
in response to authenticating the user through the second authentication scheme, provide the service through the application. (par 163-168)
It would be obvious to combine VanOs and Bielamowicz with Kim for a more secure and flexible method of authentication.
Claims 6, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanOs et al (US 2021/0192530) in view of Bielamowicz et al (US 2014/0297433) and Cho et al (US 2020/0004940)
VanOs in view of Bielamowicz discloses as above.
Regarding claim 6 –
Cho discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: based on the communication state of the electronic device being identified as capable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device, identify an authentication scheme with a highest priority with respect to the communication state of the electronic device being identified as capable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device, from among the plurality of authentication schemes, as the first authentication scheme corresponding to the online-based authentication scheme, (par 48) and
based on the communication state of the electronic device being identified as incapable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device, identify an authentication scheme with a highest priority with respect to the communication state of the electronic device being identified as incapable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device, from among the plurality of authentication schemes, as the second authentication scheme corresponding to the offline-based authentication scheme, (par 48)
wherein a priority of the plurality of authentication schemes is identified based at least in part on past authentication heuristics including a history in which each of the plurality of authentication schemes has been used to authenticate the user. based on the communication state of the electronic device being identified as capable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device, identify an authentication scheme with a highest priority with respect to the communication state of the electronic device being identified as capable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device, from among the plurality of authentication schemes, as the first authentication scheme corresponding to the online-based authentication scheme, and
based on the communication state of the electronic device being identified as incapable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device, identify an authentication scheme with a highest priority with respect to the communication state of the electronic device being identified as incapable of establishing communication connection with the external electronic device, from among the plurality of authentication schemes, as the second authentication scheme corresponding to the offline-based authentication scheme,
wherein a priority of the plurality of authentication schemes is identified based at least in part on past authentication heuristics including a history in which each of the plurality of authentication schemes has been used to authenticate the user.
Regarding claims 7 and 18 –
Cho discloses in response to identifying a failure to authenticate the user through the first authentication scheme, adjust the priority of the first authentication scheme, (par 88-89) and
update the past authentication heuristics based at least in part on the adjusted priority of the first authentication scheme, (par 88-89) and
in response to identifying a failure to authenticate the user through the second authentication scheme, adjust the priority of the second authentication scheme, and update the past authentication heuristics based at least in part on the adjusted priority of the second authentication scheme. (par 88-89)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine VanOs in view of Bielamowicz with Cho since both are in the same field of endeavor and in order to obtain a more flexible method/device – i.e., one that includes more criteria.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanOs et al (US 2021/0192530) in view of Bielamowicz et al (US 2014/0297433) and in view of Chiarello et al (US 2021/0217024).
VanOs in view of Bielamowicz discloses as above.
Regarding claim 21 –
Chiarello discloses wherein the online-based authentication scheme is a fast identity online (FIDO) or a FIDO-user verification index (UVI), (par 40-42) and
wherein the offline-based authentication scheme is a biometric authentication, a passcode, a passcode, or a pattern. (par 40-42)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine VanOs in view of Bielamowicz with Chiarello since all are in the same field of endeavor and in order to obtain a more user-friendly method/device – i.e. one that works more quickly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dicker et al (US 20170213212A1) disclose conducting transactions using electronic devices with non-native credentials).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights