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 .
Status of Claims
This is the final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on February 20, 2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101:
The applicant contends that the list limitations of the amended claims, such as “receiving, by a smart contract of a computing node, user consent and delivery data from a telecommunication service provider, wherein the delivery data includes information for contacting a device associated with a user, and wherein the smart contract is part of a distributed ledger technology (DLT),” and “initiating, by the smart contract, a scrubbing process to verify that the user consent indicates permission from the user to transfer an authentication credential via an alternate communication route; and identifying, by the smart contract, a network state,” cannot be performed in the human mind. First, the examiner would like to point out that the examiner stated that only the steps of the verifying of the user consent for a permission, the identifying of a network state, and the generating of an alternate route can be performed by the human mind. By the broadest reasonable interpretation, the user consent for a permission can be verified by looking at the received user consent, a network state can be identified by checking the gathered network status, and an alternate route can be generated based on the collected information. Therefore, these steps could be performed by the human mind. Claim 1 as a whole is directed to transferring an authentication credential for authenticating an online transaction by determining a communication route, which is related to fundamental economic practices, such as mitigating risk, a subgroup under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)). Additionally, the verifying of the user consent for a permission, the identifying of a network state, and the generating of an alternate route can be performed by the human mind, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The applicant further contends that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner would like to point out that a distributed ledger technology is commonly implemented via a blockchain network. Additionally, the claims only recite “wherein the smart contract is part of a distributed ledger technology (DLT).” Deploying a smart contract in a blockchain network to perform functionalities is a common procedure. Additionally, the distributed leger technology is cited at a high level of generality. A smart contract, an additional element, is a computer program that can be automatically executed, and it is being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These elements are used in their ordinary capacity. The paragraphs [0009]-[0011] of the specification merely disclose determining a communication route to transfer an authentication credential by using distribute ledger technology and a smart contract. As the examiner discussed above, deploying a smart contract of a blockchain to perform functionalities is a common procedure. The improvement claimed by the applicant is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, not in the function of a computer, technology, or a technical field. Claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a system comprising a processor and memory, and claims 15-20 are directed to a computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, claims 1-20 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to transferring an authentication credential for authenticating an online transaction by determining a communication route. In particular, the claim recites receiving user consent and delivery data, receiving an authentication failure indicator, initiating to verify the user consent for a permission, identifying a network state, generating an alternate route, and transferring the authentication credential via the alternate route. Therefore, the claim falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)) because the claim involves the steps for transferring an authentication credential for authenticating an online transaction by determining a communication route, which could be a process related to fundamental economic practices, such as mitigating risk. Additionally, the verifying of the user consent for a permission, the identifying of a network state, and the generating of an alternate route can be performed by the human mind. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite an abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “[a] method comprising: receiving, by a smart contract of a computing node, user consent and delivery data from a telecommunication service provider, wherein the delivery data includes information for contacting a device associated with a user, and wherein the smart contract is part of a distributed ledger technology (DLT); receiving, by the smart contract from the telecommunication service provider, an authentication failure indicator corresponding to a primary communication route to reach the user to authenticate an online transaction; initiating, by the smart contract, a scrubbing process to verify that the user consent indicates permission from the user to transfer an authentication credential via an alternate communication route; identifying, by the smart contract, a network state; generating, by the smart contract, the alternate communication route to the user based on the network state, the scrubbing process, and the delivery data; and transferring, by the smart contract, the authentication credential via the alternate communication route to allow the user to access the authentication credential to authenticate the online transaction.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements — a smart contract, a computing node, a distributed ledger technology (DLT), communication routes, a device associated with a user, and a scrubbing process in claim 1 — perform the steps or functions of receiving user consent and delivery data, receiving an authentication failure indicator, initiating to verify the user consent for a permission, identifying a network state, generating an alternate route, and transferring the authentication credential via the alternate route. Deploying a smart contract in a blockchain network to perform functionalities is a common procedure. A smart contract is a computer program that can be automatically executed, and it is being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements of communication routes are merely cited as communication channels for transferring the authentication credential. The additional element of a scrubbing process is merely a procedure for locating an alternate communication route. The additional element of wherein the smart contract is part of a distributed ledger technology merely discloses a common feature of a blockchain network. Additionally, the distributed leger technology is cited at a high level of generality. The use of a computer component as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways 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 claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it 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. Claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using a smart contract, a computing node, a distributed ledger technology (DLT), communication routes, a device associated with a user, and a scrubbing process to perform transferring an authentication credential for authenticating an online transaction by determining a communication route amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the recited abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, a smart contract, a computing node, a distributed ledger technology (DLT), communication routes, a device associated with a user, and a scrubbing process perform the steps or functions of receiving user consent and delivery data, receiving an authentication failure indicator, initiating to verify the user consent for a permission, identifying a network state, generating an alternate route, and transferring the authentication credential via the alternate route. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements of communication routes are merely cited as communication channels for transferring the authentication credential. The additional element of a scrubbing process is merely a procedure for locating an alternate communication route. The additional element of wherein the smart contract is part of a distributed ledger technology merely discloses a common feature of a blockchain network. Additionally, the distributed leger technology is cited at a high level of generality. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recites transferring an authentication credential for authenticating an online transaction by determining a communication route. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer component as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer component 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.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. The additional elements of a system comprising a processor and memory, a smart contract, a computing node, a distributed ledger technology (DLT), communication routes, a device associated with a user, and a scrubbing process do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of wherein the smart contract is part of a distributed ledger technology merely discloses a common feature of a blockchain network. This additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because this additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites the abstract idea similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. The additional elements of a computer-readable storage medium, a smart contract, a computing node, a distributed ledger technology (DLT), communication routes, a device associated with a user, and a scrubbing process do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of wherein the smart contract is part of a distributed ledger technology merely discloses a common feature of a blockchain network. This additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because this additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite wherein initiating the process, identifying the network state, generating the alternate route, and transferring the authentication credential are performed via a contract that automatically executes upon receiving the user consent, the delivery data, and the authentication failure, which further limits the identified abstract idea and falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a scrubbing process, a communication route, and a smart contract are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the additional elements of wherein the delivery data comprises at least one of: (i) a phone number or electronic contact information of a device; (ii) a website, IP address, or online access point of an online vault; or (iii) an IP address or network access point of an NFC system, and of wherein the authentication failure indicator comprises data, a data type, or a message that indicates a failed delivery of the authentication credential via the primary communication route. The additional elements fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter as they simply describe the characteristics of the delivery data and the authentication failure indicator included in the abstract idea. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 11 recite the additional elements of wherein the primary communication route comprises a cellular transmission from a telecommunication service provider to the device associated with the user, and of wherein the cellular transmission includes an SMS message comprising the authentication credential. The additional elements fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter as they simply describe the characteristics of the primary communication route and the cellular transaction. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 recite verifying the user consent by comparing a device identifier from the user consent, which further limits the identified abstract idea and falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a scrubbing process, a telecommunication service provider, a list of customer devices, and a consent database of a telecommunication service provider are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite an additional element of wherein the network state indicates at least one of: a present operability of a network of the telecommunication service provider in the vicinity of a last recorded area of an end user device, or a present operability of a local network connection as experienced by the device associated with the user. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the network state included in the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite wherein identifying the network state comprises evaluating last recorded locations using pings or GPS data, and inferring the network state based on a proximity of concurrent delivery failures, data on alarms reported, or data about calls made, which further limits the identified abstract idea and falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The additional elements of multiple devices, a communication tower, and a customer service center of a telecommunication service provider are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “receiving, by a smart contract of a computing node, user consent and delivery data from a telecommunication service provider.” The specification is silent with respect to this limitation. The paragraphs [0039] and [0043] of the specification, disclose: “At block 304, a user transfers a user consent 216 to the smart contract 214,” and “At block 306, a user transfers delivery data 218 to the smart contract 214,” respectively. The specification discloses that a user consent and delivery data are received from a user, not from a telecommunication service provider.
Dependents claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 8 discloses a system comprising a processor and memory or storage comprising computer instructions. The processor executes the instructions to perform operations. Furthermore, claim 8 discloses that the operations are performed by a smart contract of a computing node. Therefore, what is unclear is the manner of performing the same operations by the cited processor executing the instruction stored in memory of the claimed system and by a smart contract of a computing node.
Claim 15 recites a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code. One or more processors executes computer-readable program code to perform operations. Furthermore, claim 15 discloses that the operations are performed by a smart contract of a computing node. Therefore, what is unclear is the manner of performing the same operations by the cited one or more processors executing the computer-readable program code stored in a computer-readable storage medium and by a smart contract of a computing node.
Dependents claims 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Nicholson et al. (US 20070022301 A1) discloses authenticating an online user by using different and independent communication services to enhance security. A key server validates the factors of authentication, namely a first factor (username/password) and a second factor (key). The key server generates and sends the key to the user with a different and independent communication service, e.g., telephone, SMS or email. A preferred order of contact is received from the user. A communication route is selected to deliver the key to the user based on the preferred order of contact of the user. If there is a failure of delivery of the selected communication route, an alternate communication route is picked to transfer the key. The alternate communication route is the second in the preferred order of contact of the user.
Ramaswamy et al. (US 20200167861 A1) discloses a secure data acquisition and processing system. A secure server receives a phone number provided by a customer and automatically sends an SMS invitation message to the customer's phone or mobile computing device requesting authorization from the customer to begin a secure loan application process. The process determines whether the customer’s computing device is actively connected to a communication network service in order to receive and respond to the SMS invitation message, and thus provide the necessary consent.
Chang (CN 111130714 A) discloses data transmission. A second communication channel is selected when a response of a failure of the data transmission by the first communication channel is received.
Dawson et al. (US 20220021528 A1) discloses utilizing a smart contract performing required functions/procedures.
Kirillin et al. (US 20130139222 A1) discloses authenticating a mobile device by sending the one-time passwords via alternate communication pathways.
Li et al. (CN 107770053 B) discloses communicating with a user by one of pre-determined contact methods when the user is currently in offline status.
Sellers et al. (US 20200177689 A1) discloses managing electronic resource transfers based on established smart contract requirements within a blockchain distributed network environment.
Carrico (US 11876668 B1) discloses a method for communication channel failover between disparate communication providers. The method comprises: initiating establishing a first communication channel between the first user device and the second user device, wherein the first communication channel is provided by a first communication channel provider. The method further comprises: receiving a failure to connect signal from the first user; in response to receiving the failure to connect signal, determining whether a second communication channel provided by a second communication channel provider of a plurality of disparate communication channel providers meets failover criteria. In response to determining that the second communication channel provided by the second communication channel provider meets failover criteria, redirecting the first user device and second user device to the second communication channel.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The 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 CHUNLING DING whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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, Neha Patel, can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights