CTFR 17/984,352 CTFR 84445 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Status of the Claims The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 3/17/2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are currently amended. Claims 4, 11 and 18 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are pending and addressed below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are directed to a method, a system, a computer program product which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention ( Step 1: YES ). Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…capture an image of a resource distribution instrument associated with a resource distribution, wherein the resource distribution instrument identifies a recipient user account, generate, using the captured image, an electronic copy of the resource distribution instrument; capture data regarding the current location of the device associated with the generation of the electronic copy; generate, using the data regarding the current location of the device, a geolocation identifier; transmit an electronic authorization request; receive an electronic authorization response from the user associated with the recipient user, wherein the electronic authorization response comprises at least one of an electronic signature; access a plurality of historical electronic signatures, wherein the plurality of historical electronic signatures corresponds to the recipient user account; identify a most recent historical electronic signature from the plurality of historical electronic signatures, wherein the most recent historical electronic signature is identified based on a most recent time and a same type of electronic signature captured at a same type; authenticate the recipient user based on comparing the electronic signature to the most recent historical electronic signature and determine the electronic signature matches the most recent historical electronic signature, one or more historical electronic signatures and comparing the geolocation identifier to at least one verified geolocation identifier to determine the geolocation identifier matches the at least one verified geolocation identifier; and generate, in response to the authentication, an authorization of the resource distribution instrument based on the electronic authorization response”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. electronic authorization for the distribution of the resource instrument) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claimed of at least one memory device, a processing device, a communication device, a device, a camera, a light sensor array, and a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver module, a user device, a recipient user device, a signature capture device, a user account database, a signature pad, and a touchscreen or a mouse that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…capture … an image of a resource distribution instrument; generate… an electronic copy of the resource distribution instrument; capture… data; generate… a geolocation identifier; transmit …an electronic authorization request; receive… an electronic authorization response; captured… an electronic signature; access… a plurality of historical electronic signatures; identify …a most recent historical electronic signature; authenticate …the recipient user based on comparing the electronic signature and comparing the geolocation identifier…; and generate… an authorization of the resource distribution instrument…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the memory device, the processing device, the communication device, the device, the camera, the light sensor array, and the Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver module, the user device, the recipient user device, the signature capture device, the user account database, the signature pad, and the touchscreen or the mouse that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…capture … an image of a resource distribution instrument; generate… an electronic copy of the resource distribution instrument; capture… data; generate… a geolocation identifier; transmit …an electronic authorization request; receive… an electronic authorization response; captured… an electronic signature; access… a plurality of historical electronic signatures; identify …a most recent historical electronic signature; authenticate …the recipient user based on comparing the electronic signature and comparing the geolocation identifier…; and generate… an authorization of the resource distribution instrument…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1. Thus, the claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not eligible. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19 and 20 are dependent on claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19 and 20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19 and 20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the resource distribution machine that comprising the camera and the light sensor array, the recipient device, the user account database, the imaging device, the user device, the physical characteristic scanning device, the signature application and the signature capture device included in the dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…capture…an image; generate…the electronic copy…” (claims 2, 9 and 16); query… a user account database to determine… the verified electronic authorization response and the geolocation identifier; compare… the electronic authorization responses and the geolocation identifiers; and authenticate… the electronic authorization response for the resource distribution instrument (claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 20); and capture…the electronic authorization response (claims 7 and 14), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19 and 20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the resource distribution machine that comprising the camera and the light sensor array, the recipient device, the user account database, the imaging device, the user device, the physical characteristic scanning device, the signature application and the signature capture device included in the dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…capture…an image; generate…the electronic copy…” (claims 2, 9 and 16); query… a user account database to determine… the verified electronic authorization response and the geolocation identifier; compare… the electronic authorization responses and the geolocation identifiers; and authenticate… the electronic authorization response for the resource distribution instrument (claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 20); and capture…the electronic authorization response (claims 7 and 14), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19 and 20 are not patent eligible. Response to Arguments Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101 The updated rejections of claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19 and 20 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Argument : Applicant argued that: “…the claims of the instant application recite a combination of steps that operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure the authentication of the resource distribution instrument in a secure manner that is more than any other conventional authentication process employed by resource distribution machines. Specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that at least the independent claims are similar to Claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas published by the USPTO in December 2014. Example 35 - Verifying a Bank Customer's Identity to Permit an ATM Transaction…” (Please see the remarks on pages 11-16). Answer : The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the Office has explained above that the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the claim of at least one memory device, a processing device, a communication device, a device, a camera, a light sensor array, and a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver module, a user device, a recipient user device, a signature capture device, a user account database, a signature pad, and a touchscreen or a mouse that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “… capture … an image of a resource distribution instrument; generate … an electronic copy of the resource distribution instrument; capture … data; generate … a geolocation identifier; transmit …an electronic authorization request; receive … an electronic authorization response; captured … an electronic signature; access … a plurality of historical electronic signatures; identify …a most recent historical electronic signature; authenticate …the recipient user based on comparing the electronic signature and comparing the geolocation identifier…; and generate … an authorization of the resource distribution instrument…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the memory device, the processing device, the communication device, the device, the camera, the light sensor array, and the Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver module, the user device, the recipient user device, the signature capture device, the user account database, the signature pad, and the touchscreen or the mouse that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “… capture … an image of a resource distribution instrument; generate … an electronic copy of the resource distribution instrument; capture … data; generate … a geolocation identifier; transmit …an electronic authorization request; receive … an electronic authorization response; captured … an electronic signature; access … a plurality of historical electronic signatures; identify …a most recent historical electronic signature; authenticate …the recipient user based on comparing the electronic signature and comparing the geolocation identifier…; and generate … an authorization of the resource distribution instrument…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Thus, the claim performs the functions of nothing more than “… capture … data; generate … data; transmit …an electronic authorization request; receive … an electronic authorization response; captured … an electronic signature; access … signatures; identify …the signature; authenticate …the recipient user…; and generate … the authorization”, which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept . Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. For at least one of the reasons above, “the claims of the instant application do not recite a combination of steps that operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way…” and “the independent claims are not similar to Claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples”, wherein (e.g., the ATM providing the random code, the mobile communication device's generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM's decryption and analysis of the code data , and the subsequent determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis of the code data; "ATM's provision of the random code, the mobile communication device's generation of the customer confirmation code in response to the random code, the ATM's analysis of the customer confirmation code, and the ATM's subsequent sending of a control signal to provide or prevent access to the keypad of the ATM and thus allow or prevent a transaction based on the analysis of the code data sets) (Please see remarks on pages 12-16). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. For the above reasons, it is believed that Appellant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained . Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 2 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 3 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 4 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 5 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 6 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 7 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 8 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 9 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 10 Art Unit: 3694 Application/Control Number: 17/984,352 Page 11 Art Unit: 3694
Prosecution Insights