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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on 28 November 2025.
2. Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 15, 18 have been amended.
3. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended Claims 1-20 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-20, Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. Applicant argues that as amended, Applicant states as summarized under Step 2A: “…the claims are not directed to methods of organizing human activity; …the claims are directed to improvements to another technical field, namely, improvements to security of always-on listening devices and skill squatting prevention” (see Remarks/Arguments pages 7-9). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Further clarified, the claims still recite as a whole recite certain groupings under the categories listed under MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C as:
Certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions; commercial or legal interactions). At least the steps of "retrieving unique and non-confidential verification information... comprising information associated with a transaction previously-completed" and "receiving an indication from the user that the... information is valid" represent a method of financial transaction authentication. This is a "fundamental economic practice" or a "commercial interaction". The process of validating a user to prevent "fraudulent" activity based on a previously-completed action is a method of managing personal behavior or following established rules.
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The steps of "retrieving; presenting; verification information; receiving an indication; a determination that the indication from the user that the unique and non-confidential verification information is valid indicates that the skill is not fraudulent, enabling the skill to continue operation based on the indication” are actions that can be performed in the human mind (or by a human using a pen and paper) when, for example, a bank teller verifies a signature or transaction history with a customer.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong One. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components. Regarding improvements to another technical field, under Step 2A Prong Two for Claims 1-20 and with regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims contain computer components (“device; non-transitory computer-readable medium; processor; server”, etc.) that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims”). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h). In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer (processor) to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits that: (2) Anand et al. (Anand) (US 2023/0188892) in view of Dhindsa et al. (Dhindsa) (US 20220224685) do not teach or suggest in amended Claim 1: “retrieving unique and non-confidential verification information related to the user or the always-on listening device, the unique and non-confidential verification information comprising information associated with a transaction previously-completed by the user” [see Remarks pages 10-11]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Anand in view of Dhindsa teaches comprising information (user information database) associated with a transaction previously-completed by the user (the user information database may include reference image data (e.g., one or more video frames of previously obtained video data) corresponding to a facial reference signature associated with User A's face. The biometric analysis module may process video data of the authentication response using the facial recognition model and the facial reference signature to determine whether User A is an authorized user. Additionally, or alternatively, the user information database may include reference audio data (e.g., previously obtained audio) of User A's voice (and/or speech) corresponding to a voice reference signature. The biometric analysis module may process audio data of the authentication response using the voice recognition model and the voice reference signature to permit the biometric analysis module to determine whether User A is an authorized user) in analogous art of authenticate a user associated with a user account for the purposes of: “can improve accuracy with respect to authenticating a user by using one or more complex factors (e.g., as a part of an MFA process) to authenticate an authentication response of a user and reducing opportunities for fraudulent interception of authentication information” (Dhindsa: see at least paragraphs 41-44, 50-52, Abstract). It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are each focused to a statutory category of invention namely “method; non-transitory computer-readable medium” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-20 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activity that encompass processing information by:
“receiving, at an always-on listening device, an audio signal from a user;
invoking a skill on the always-on listening device from a dormant state into an active state based on the audio signal;
retrieving unique and non-confidential verification information related to the user or the always-on listening device, the unique and non-confidential verification information comprising information associated with a transaction previously-completed by the user;
presenting the unique and non-confidential verification information to the user;
receiving an indication from the user that the unique and non-confidential verification information is valid; and
in accordance with a determination that the indication from the user that the unique and non-confidential verification information is valid indicates that the skill is not fraudulent, enabling the skill to continue operation based on the indication”
The claims as a whole recite certain groupings under the categories:
Certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions; commercial or legal interactions). At least the steps of "retrieving unique and non-confidential verification information... comprising information associated with a transaction previously-completed" and "receiving an indication from the user that the... information is valid" represent a method of financial transaction authentication. This is a "fundamental economic practice" or a "commercial interaction". The process of validating a user to prevent "fraudulent" activity based on a previously-completed action is a method of managing personal behavior or following established rules.
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The steps of "retrieving; presenting; verification information; receiving an indication; a determination that the indication from the user that the unique and non-confidential verification information is valid indicates that the skill is not fraudulent, enabling the skill to continue operation based on the indication” are actions that can be performed in the human mind (or by a human using a pen and paper) when, for example, a bank teller verifies a signature or transaction history with a customer.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components.
Prong Two: Claims 1-20: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims contain computer components (“device; non-transitory computer-readable medium; processor; server”, etc.) that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims”). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “device; server; non-transitory computer-readable medium; processor”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶'s 2-3, 12-18) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “system 100” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int' l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand et al. (Anand) (US 2023/0188892) in view of Dhindsa et al. (Dhindsa) (US 20220224685).
With regard to Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-16, 18, 20, Anand teaches a method/non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions, when executed by a processor/device (system 106) of an always-on (perform speech-processing operations. For example, the ASR component 138 may be configured to generate text data corresponding to the audio data, and the NLU component 140 may be configured to generate intent data corresponding to the audio data. In examples, intent data may be generated that represents the audio data, such as without the generation and/or use of text data) listening device (voice enabled; When device data is utilized, the device data may indicate the presence of a personal device associated with a user, such as a mobile phone and/or a wearable device. These devices may send out beacons that are received at a given primary device, indicating that the devices are proximate to the primary device and also indicating that the user associated with such devices are present. The data associated with the presence event may be any data that may be utilized by the activity model to determine a predefined activity, if any, that is occurring in association with an environment in which a target device is situated; sensor data may be received from the one or more connected devices in an environment associated with the target device. The one or more connected devices may be Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices that may generate data indicating one or more attributes of the environment. For example, the connected devices may include a device having a microphone configured to capture audio representing sounds made within the environment and to generate corresponding audio data that may be analyzed; FIG. 10 illustrates a conceptual diagram of how a spoken utterance can be processed, allowing a system to capture and execute commands spoken by a user, such as spoken commands that may follow a wakeword, or trigger expression, (i.e., a predefined word or phrase for “waking” a device, causing the device to begin processing audio data). The various components illustrated may be located on a same device or different physical devices. Message between various components illustrated in FIG. 10 may occur directly or across a network 106. An audio capture component, such as a microphone 116 of the device 102, or another device, captures audio 1000 corresponding to a spoken utterance) (see at least paragraphs 30-48, 155), cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at an always-on listening device, an audio signal from a user (The electronic devices 102, 104 may include one or more components, such as, for example, one or more processors 110, one or more network interfaces 112, memory 114, one or more microphones 116, one or more speakers 118, and/or one or more displays 120. The microphones 116 may be configured to capture audio, such as user utterances, and generate corresponding audio data. The speakers 118 may be configured to output audio, such as audio corresponding to audio data received from another device and/or the system 106. The displays 120 may be configured to display images corresponding to image data, such as image data received from the system 106 and/or one or more other devices. Additionally, the displays 120 may be configured as touchscreens that may receive user input, such as via a GUI) (see at least paragraphs 30-48);
invoking a skill on the always-on listening device from a dormant state into an active state based on the audio signal (the system 106 may include one or more applications, which may be described as skills. “Skills,” as described herein may be applications and/or may be a subset of an application. For example, a skill may receive data representing an intent. For example, an intent may be determined by the NLU component 140 and/or as determined from user input via a computing device. Skills may be configured to utilize the intent to output data for input to a text-to-speech component, a link or other resource locator for audio data, and/or a command to a device, such as the electronic device 102, 104. “Skills” may include applications running on devices, such as the electronic device 102, 104, and/or may include portions that interface with voice user interfaces of electronic devices 102, 104) (see at least paragraphs 32-35);
retrieving unique (skill) and non-confidential (non-skill) information related to the user or the always-on listening device (In instances where a voice-enabled device is utilized, skills may extend the functionality of devices 102, 104 that can be controlled by users utilizing a voice-user interface. In some examples, skills may be a type of application that may be useable in association with accessory devices and may have been developed specifically to work in connection with given accessory devices. Additionally, skills may be a type of application that may be useable in association with the voice-enabled device and may have been developed specifically to provide given functionality to the voice-enabled device. In examples, a non-skill application may be an application that does not include the functionality of a skill. Speechlets, as described herein, may be a type of application that may be usable in association with voice-enabled devices and may have been developed specifically to work in connection with voice interfaces of voice-enabled devices. The application(s) 130 may be configured to cause processor(s) to receive information associated with interactions with the voice-enabled device. The application(s) 130 may also be utilized, in examples, to receive input, such as from a user of a personal device and/or the voice-enabled device and send data and/or instructions associated with the input to one or more other devices) () see at least paragraphs 30-35, 44-46);
presenting the unique and non-confidential information to the user (the input may be a small set of data, for example a set of points or an image region that is assumed to contain a specific object. The remaining processing may comprise, for example: verification that the data satisfy model-based and application-specific assumptions; estimation of application-specific parameters, such as object pose or object size; classifying a detected object into different categories; and comparing and combining two different views of the same object. Making the final decision required for the application, for example match/no-match in recognition applications, may then be performed) (see at least paragraphs 30-35, 45);
Anand does not specifically teach verification information; receiving an indication from the user that the verification information is valid; enabling the skill to continue operation; comprising information associated with a transaction previously-completed by the user. Dhindsa teaches:
verification (As shown in FIG. 1D, and by reference number 155, the authentication system performs a biometric analysis of the authentication response to verify that an authorized user provided the authentication response);
receiving an indication from the user that the verification information is valid (when a described characteristic corresponds to and/or is associated with (e.g., match or appear to match) parameter(s) of the operation, the authentication system may infer that the authentication response is valid (was provided by an authorized user, such as User A); As shown in FIG. 1D, and by reference number 155, the authentication system performs a biometric analysis of the authentication response to verify that an authorized user provided the authentication response);
in accordance with a determination that the indication from the user that the unique and non- confidential verification information is valid indicates that the skill is not fraudulent, enabling the skill to continue operation based on the indication (the authentication system may indicate that the user has not been authenticated and/or prevent the application server from performing of the operation (e.g., to prevent potential fraud associated with the requested operation); can improve accuracy with respect to authenticating a user by using one or more complex factors (e.g., as a part of an MFA process) to authenticate an authentication response of a user and reducing opportunities for fraudulent interception of authentication information);
comprising information (user information database) associated with a transaction previously-completed by the user (the user information database may include reference image data (e.g., one or more video frames of previously obtained video data) corresponding to a facial reference signature associated with User A's face. The biometric analysis module may process video data of the authentication response using the facial recognition model and the facial reference signature to determine whether User A is an authorized user. Additionally, or alternatively, the user information database may include reference audio data (e.g., previously obtained audio) of User A's voice (and/or speech) corresponding to a voice reference signature. The biometric analysis module may process audio data of the authentication response using the voice recognition model and the voice reference signature to permit the biometric analysis module to determine whether User A is an authorized user) in analogous art of authenticate a user associated with a user account for the purposes of: “can improve accuracy with respect to authenticating a user by using one or more complex factors (e.g., as a part of an MFA process) to authenticate an authentication response of a user and reducing opportunities for fraudulent interception of authentication information” (see at least paragraphs 41-44, 50-52, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the context-based authentication of a user as taught by Dhindsa in the system of Anand, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With regard to Claims 2, 13, 19, Anand teaches upon a verification of the legitimacy of the skill, receiving instructions from the user to operate the skill (see at least paragraph 45).
With regard to Claims 3, 14, 20, Anand teaches wherein the presenting the unique and non-confidential information to the user comprises presenting a response on a user device that is different from the always-on listening device (see at least paragraph 24).
With regard to Claims 4, 15, Anand teaches: the unique and non-confidential information is retrieved from an account stored on a server (see at least paragraphs 20, 25, 35).
With regard to Claims 5, 16, Anand teaches wherein the presenting the unique and non-confidential information to the user comprises presenting location information related to the user (see at least paragraph 145).
With regard to Claims 6, 17, Anand teaches wherein the receiving the audio signal from the user comprises receiving an explicit trigger voice message including a name of the skill (see at least paragraph 155).
With regard to Claim 7, Anand teaches: configuring the skill on the always-on listening device to be linked to an account stored on a server (see at least paragraphs 20, 25, 35);
the retrieving the unique and non-confidential information related to the user or the always-on listening device comprises retrieving the unique and non-confidential information linked to the account stored on the server (see at least paragraphs 20, 25, 35).
With regard to Claim 8, Anand teaches: requesting, from the server, the unique and non-confidential information linked to the account (see at least paragraphs 20, 25, 35);
receiving a message from the server including the unique and non-confidential information (see at least paragraphs 69-72).
With regard to Claim 9, Anand teaches wherein the presenting the unique and non-confidential information to the user comprises presenting a haptic response on a user device linked to the account (see at least paragraphs 20, 25, 35).
With regard to Claim 10, Anand teaches: the account is a financial account (user accounts), and wherein the transaction is a financial transaction (banking; shopping) previously-completed by the user related to the financial account (data identified, determined, and/or generated while using some or all of the system 100 may be stored or otherwise associated with an account identifier. Data associated with the user accounts may include, for example, account access information, historical usage data, device-association data, and/or preference data) (see at least paragraphs 35, 173).
With regard to Claim 11, Anand teaches receiving instructions from the user to request the skill to present further information to the user, such that the further information is used to verify the legitimacy of the skill (see at least paragraphs 24, 45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Meissner et al. (US 11,868,728)
Balasubramanya et al. (WO 2023/230025 A1)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624