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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication received on 08/15/2025.
Status of the Claims
This is a FINAL Office Action rejection prepared in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on
08/15/2025.
Claims 21, 25, 28, 32, 35 and 39 are amended.
Claims 1-20, 23, 30 and 37 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22, 24-29, 31-36 and 38-40 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 40, the recited “the one or more intervening actions…” should be amended to “the one or more actions…” as there is no antecedents basis for “the one or more intervening actions…” in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Nonfunctional language:
Regarding claim 21, 28 and 35, the claimed limitation “the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and a notification to not communicate back to the user device” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it does not affect the positively recited steps as the description of the data does not affect the positively recited step(s) in the method claim(s).
Regarding claim 40, the claimed limitation “the alternative interface comprises one or more of a false indication that a transaction has been processed or a false indication of a minimized account balance” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it does not affect the positively recited steps.
Conditional language:
Regarding claims 21, 28 and 35, the claimed limitation “responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Intended use/result Language:
Regarding claims 21 and 28, the claimed limitation “...presents an…” in “the emergency mode display presents an alternative interface that…” consists of language disclosing an intended result, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
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 21-22, 24-29, 31-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 21-22 and 24-27 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Claims 28-29 and 31-36 are directed to a second method (i.e., process). Claims 38-40 are directed to a third method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 21, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for initiating an emergency mode at an electronic wallet application, the method comprising:
receiving an input at a silent alarm engine of the electronic wallet application running on a user device, the input comprising credentials provided by a user of the user device;
verifying an identity of the user by comparing the credentials to normal credentials and emergency credentials;
determining, based on the comparing, whether the credentials correspond to a normal mode or an emergency mode;
responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display, wherein
the emergency mode display presents an alternative interface that displays an incorrect account balance associated with the user and
providing instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency service provider, the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and a notification to not communicate back to the user device.
Claim 21, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for initializing an emergency mode. The claim achieves this by receiving an input comprising user credentials, determining if the user provided emergency credentials by comparing the received credentials to normal and emergency credentials, if emergency credentials are received provide instructions to execute an emergency mode and alert authorities. Claim 28 and 35 are significantly similar to claim 21. As such claim 28 and 35 also recite an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).).
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of an electronic wallet application, a silent alarm engine, a sensor, a user device and an alternative interface merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 22, 24-27, 29, 31-34, 36 and 38-40 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 22, 24-27, 29, 31-34, 36 and 38-40 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 22, 29 and 36 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the silent alarm engine provides instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency services provider.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a silent alarm engine and a user device fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 24, 31 and 38 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
communicating the alert to a provider associated with a transaction initiated at the electronic wallet application while in emergency mode.
The claim further an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 25 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
initiating one or more actions that alter a functionality of the electronic wallet application.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 26 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the alternative interface falsely indicates that a transaction has been processed.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an alternative interface fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 27 and 34 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
reporting a destination address to a provider associated with the transaction and an emergency services provider.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 32 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
initiating one or more actions that modify the user interface of the electronic wallet application.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 33 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the alternative interface minimizes a balance associated with the user of the electronic wallet application.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 39 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
initiating one or more actions that suppress a standard transaction behavior at the electronic wallet application.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of electronic wallet application fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 40 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the alternative interface comprises one or more of a false indication that a transaction has been processed or a false indication of a minimized account balance.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an alternative interface fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
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.
Claims 21-22, 25-26, 28-29, 32-33, 35-36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 5,615,277) in view of Nakano (US 5,987,438).
Regarding claim 21, Hoffman discloses:
receiving an input at a silent alarm engine of the [(Hoffman abstract, The security system and method are principally based on a correlative comparison of a unique biometric sample, such as a finger print or voice recording, gathered directly from the person of an unknown user with an authenticated unique biometric sample of the same type obtained from each authorized user. Hoffman Col 5 lines 57-60, In operation, the user enters biometric data directly from his person, such as by pressing a finger or thumb print onto a sensor pad. This input data is then transmitted to another part of the system that is operatively isolated from the user. Here the input biometric data collected from the user is compared to authenticated biometric data collected from each individual authorized to obtain access to the secured computer system. Hoffman Col 6 lines 26-31, Upon receipt of the input biometric data from the user, the secured computer network would forward said data to the security system of the invention, where a verification of the user's identity would be determined from comparison with authenticated biometric data from authorized users of the secured computer system. Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state a silent alarm, Hoffman discloses on Col 4 lines 41-45 that “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken” and on Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”, thereby implying that the alarm operates silently. )
verifying an identity of the user by comparing the credentials to normal credentials and emergency credentials; (Hoffman Col 5 lines 51-54, comparison means for comparing the input biometric data with authenticated biometric data of authorized users and verifying user identity based upon the comparison; Col 6 lines 59-63)
determining, based on the comparing, whether the credentials correspond to a normal mode or an emergency mode; (Hoffman Col 6 lines 59-63, In such an embodiment, an authorized user would have a number of codes, one of which would be recognized by the security system as the standard access code, and the remainder of which would be recognized as emergency codes. The comparison means of the security system of the invention would be configured to accept and recognize more than one code per authorized user, and to activate the emergency alert means whenever the code entered by the user matched an emergency code.)
responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display, wherein (Hoffman Col 15 lines 59-67 & Col 16 lines 1-10, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situation by automatically imposing limitations of the types and amounts of transaction that can be carried out when access has been coerced. Such means would be triggered automatically by activation of the emergency notification means and transmit an access limitation request to the computer system or systems to be accessed. This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access.)
the emergency mode display presents an alternative interface that displays an incorrect account balance associated with the user; and (Hoffman Col 7 lines 30-33, In such a case, the secured computer system would also generate temporary dummy accounts to reflect only enough money or credit to transact a particular transaction. Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account. Hoffman Col 16, lines 10-12, For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions.)
providing instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency service provider the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and (Hoffman Col 15 lines 30-42, Preliminary, it should be noted that it is essential that such emergency notification means be invisible, or at least extremely inconspicuous to, the coercing party. Such features would have little value if discoverable, and potentially could result in physical harm to the authorized user. According to one aspect of the invention, the security system is provided with an emergency notification means that alerts the nearest located police or other designated law enforcement agency that a computer system, such as a credit card account, is being access involuntarily. The means further provides the locality of the access attempt and the name of the authorized user.)
a notification to not communicate back to the user device. (Hoffman Col 4 lines 41-45, “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken”. Hoffman Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”.
Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state “a notification to not communicate back to the user device”, it emphasizes the importance of secret operations to avoid alerting the enemy which provides a clear motivation to one skilled in the art to configure the alert to include an instruction to not communicate back with the user.
Hoffman does not disclose, however Nakano teaches:
an electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Hoffman’s teaching with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that enables an authorized user to silently alert authorities in the event of coercion or emergency.
Regarding claim 22, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 21. Hoffman further discloses:
the silent alarm engine provides instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency services provider. (Hoffman Col 5 lines 7-11, Yet another object of the invention is to provide a computer access security system that enables a user to notify authorities that a particular access request is being coerced by a third party without giving notice to the third party of the notification. Hoffman Col 6 lines 52-55, According to a further embodiment of the invention, a means is provided for alerting predesignated authorities during an access attempt that the user has been coerced to request access by a third party.)
Regarding claim 25 Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 21. Hoffman further discloses:
initiating one or more actions that alter a functionality (Hoffman Col 5 lines 31-42, Further, these objects are met by providing a security system and method in which certain programs and data within the computer access verification system are isolated from and inaccessible to the user, at least until the access requested has been granted. According to the invention, actual verification of user identity is isolated from possible tampering by the user requesting access. More importantly, all stored authenticated biometric data used in the verification process is also isolated from access by the user until the user's identity has been verified, thereby preventing the counterfeiting and reuse of the authenticated data to gain fraudulent access. Hoffman col 15 lines 59-67 & col 16 lines 1-21, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situation by automatically imposing limitations of the types and amounts of transaction that can be carried out when access has been coerced. Such means would be triggered automatically by activation of the emergency notification means and transmit an access limitation request to the computer system or systems to be accessed. This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access. For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions. Alternatively, the computer system may provide a false, but otherwise standard error message or display screen to indicate that a particular type of transaction or account is temporarily unavailable due to mechanical error or the like. It will be appreciated that means for achieving the impositions of such limitations are know and are in use currently by, for example, financial institutions when a customer reports a lost credit or ATM card.)
Nakano further teaches:
of the electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Hoffman and Nakano with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that has additional security and control features for fraud prevention and regulatory compliance.
Regarding claim 26 Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 21. Hoffman further discloses:
the alternative interface falsely indicates that a transaction has been processed. (Hoffman Col 7 lines 33-37, Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account.)
Regarding claim 28 Hoffman discloses:
receiving an input at a silent alarm engine of the [(Hoffman abstract, The security system and method are principally based on a correlative comparison of a unique biometric sample, such as a finger print or voice recording, gathered directly from the person of an unknown user with an authenticated unique biometric sample of the same type obtained from each authorized user. Hoffman Col 5 lines 57-60, In operation, the user enters biometric data directly from his person, such as by pressing a finger or thumb print onto a sensor pad. This input data is then transmitted to another part of the system that is operatively isolated from the user. Here the input biometric data collected from the user is compared to authenticated biometric data collected from each individual authorized to obtain access to the secured computer system. Hoffman Col 6 lines 26-31, Upon receipt of the input biometric data from the user, the secured computer network would forward said data to the security system of the invention, where a verification of the user's identity would be determined from comparison with authenticated biometric data from authorized users of the secured computer system. Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state a silent alarm, Hoffman discloses on Col 4 lines 41-45 that “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken” and on Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”, thereby implying that the alarm operates silently. )
verifying an identity of the user by comparing the credentials to normal credentials and emergency credentials; (Hoffman Col 5 lines 51-54, comparison means for comparing the input biometric data with authenticated biometric data of authorized users and verifying user identity based upon the comparison)
determining, based on the comparing, whether the credentials correspond to a normal mode or an emergency mode; (Hoffman Col 6 lines 59-63, In such an embodiment, an authorized user would have a number of codes, one of which would be recognized by the security system as the standard access code, and the remainder of which would be recognized as emergency codes. The comparison means of the security system of the invention would be configured to accept and recognize more than one code per authorized user, and to activate the emergency alert means whenever the code entered by the user matched an emergency code.)
responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display, wherein (Hoffman Col 15 lines 59-67 & Col 16 lines 1-10, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situation by automatically imposing limitations of the types and amounts of transaction that can be carried out when access has been coerced. Such means would be triggered automatically by activation of the emergency notification means and transmit an access limitation request to the computer system or systems to be accessed. This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access.)
the emergency mode display presents an alternative interface that falsely indicates that a transaction has been processed; and ((Hoffman Col 7 lines 33-37, Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account.)
providing instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency service provider the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and (Hoffman Col 15 lines 30-42, Preliminary, it should be noted that it is essential that such emergency notification means be invisible, or at least extremely inconspicuous to, the coercing party. Such features would have little value if discoverable, and potentially could result in physical harm to the authorized user. According to one aspect of the invention, the security system is provided with an emergency notification means that alerts the nearest located police or other designated law enforcement agency that a computer system, such as a credit card account, is being access involuntarily. The means further provides the locality of the access attempt and the name of the authorized user.)
a notification to not communicate back to the user device. (Hoffman Col 4 lines 41-45, “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken”. Hoffman Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”.
Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state “a notification to not communicate back to the user device”, it emphasizes the importance of secret operations to avoid alerting the enemy which provides a clear motivation to one skilled in the art to configure the alert to include an instruction to not communicate back with the user.
Hoffman does not disclose, however Nakano teaches:
an electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Hoffman’s teaching with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that enables an authorized user to silently alert authorities in the event of coercion or emergency.
Regarding claim 29, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 28. Hoffman further discloses:
the silent alarm engine provides instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency services provider. (Hoffman Col 5 lines 7-11, Yet another object of the invention is to provide a computer access security system that enables a user to notify authorities that a particular access request is being coerced by a third party without giving notice to the third party of the notification. Hoffman Col 6 lines 52-55, According to a further embodiment of the invention, a means is provided for alerting predesignated authorities during an access attempt that the user has been coerced to request access by a third party.)
Regarding claim 32, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 28. Hoffman further discloses:
initiating one or more actions that modify the user interface (Hoffman Col 16 lines 5-17, This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access. For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions. Alternatively, the computer system may provide a false, but otherwise standard error message or display screen to indicate that a particular type of transaction or account is temporarily unavailable due to mechanical error or the like.)
Nakano further teaches:
of the electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Hoffman and Nakano with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that has additional security and control features for fraud prevention and regulatory compliance.
Regarding claim 33, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 28. Hoffman further discloses:
the alternative interface minimizes a balance associated with the user of the electronic wallet application. (Hoffman Col 7 lines 30-33, In such a case, the secured computer system would also generate temporary dummy accounts to reflect only enough money or credit to transact a particular transaction. Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account. Hoffman Col 16, lines 10-12, For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions.)
Regarding claim 35 Hoffman discloses:
receiving an input at a silent alarm engine of the [(Hoffman abstract, The security system and method are principally based on a correlative comparison of a unique biometric sample, such as a finger print or voice recording, gathered directly from the person of an unknown user with an authenticated unique biometric sample of the same type obtained from each authorized user. Hoffman Col 5 lines 57-60, In operation, the user enters biometric data directly from his person, such as by pressing a finger or thumb print onto a sensor pad. This input data is then transmitted to another part of the system that is operatively isolated from the user. Here the input biometric data collected from the user is compared to authenticated biometric data collected from each individual authorized to obtain access to the secured computer system. Hoffman Col 6 lines 26-31, Upon receipt of the input biometric data from the user, the secured computer network would forward said data to the security system of the invention, where a verification of the user's identity would be determined from comparison with authenticated biometric data from authorized users of the secured computer system. Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state a silent alarm, Hoffman discloses on Col 4 lines 41-45 that “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken” and on Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”, thereby implying that the alarm operates silently. )
verifying an identity of the user by comparing the credentials to normal credentials and emergency credentials; (Hoffman Col 5 lines 51-54, comparison means for comparing the input biometric data with authenticated biometric data of authorized users and verifying user identity based upon the comparison)
determining, based on the comparing, whether the credentials correspond to a normal mode or an emergency mode; (Hoffman Col 6 lines 59-63, In such an embodiment, an authorized user would have a number of codes, one of which would be recognized by the security system as the standard access code, and the remainder of which would be recognized as emergency codes. The comparison means of the security system of the invention would be configured to accept and recognize more than one code per authorized user, and to activate the emergency alert means whenever the code entered by the user matched an emergency code.)
responsive to determining that the credentials correspond to the emergency mode, providing instructions to the electronic wallet application to transition to an emergency mode display, wherein (Hoffman Col 15 lines 59-67 & Col 16 lines 1-10, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situation by automatically imposing limitations of the types and amounts of transaction that can be carried out when access has been coerced. Such means would be triggered automatically by activation of the emergency notification means and transmit an access limitation request to the computer system or systems to be accessed. This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access.)
the display in the electronic wallet application, while in the emergency mode, appears to continue in a normal operating mode so as not to alert a third party; and (Hoffman Col 7 lines 6-13, As discussed above, the invention includes an emergency alert means. The well-being of the user requesting access might be jeopardized if the coercing party discovered that the user was attempting to notify authorities. Thus, it is critical that the access procedure continue uninterruptedly and that access be granted to an authorized user so that the coercing party believes that everything is proceeding normally.)
providing instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency service provider the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and (Hoffman Col 15 lines 30-42, Preliminary, it should be noted that it is essential that such emergency notification means be invisible, or at least extremely inconspicuous to, the coercing party. Such features would have little value if discoverable, and potentially could result in physical harm to the authorized user. According to one aspect of the invention, the security system is provided with an emergency notification means that alerts the nearest located police or other designated law enforcement agency that a computer system, such as a credit card account, is being access involuntarily. The means further provides the locality of the access attempt and the name of the authorized user.)
a notification to not communicate back to the user device. (Hoffman Col 4 lines 41-45, “There is further a great need for a computer security access system that affords an authorized user the ability to alert authorities that a third party is coercing the user to request access without the third party being aware that an alert has been undertaken”. Hoffman Col 15 lines 53-58, “Thus, when the authorized user attempts access, he may enter one of the emergency variants, thereby triggering the emergency notification means without the knowledge of the third party. After entry of the personal code, the access procedure continues normally so as not to alert the third party that help has been sought”.
Although, Hoffman does not explicitly state “a notification to not communicate back to the user device”, it emphasizes the importance of secret operations to avoid alerting the enemy which provides a clear motivation to one skilled in the art to configure the alert to include an instruction to not communicate back with the user.
Nakano further teaches:
an electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Hoffman’s teaching with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that enables an authorized user to silently alert authorities in the event of coercion or emergency.
Regarding claim 36, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 35. Hoffman further discloses:
the silent alarm engine provides instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency services provider. (Hoffman Col 5 lines 7-11, Yet another object of the invention is to provide a computer access security system that enables a user to notify authorities that a particular access request is being coerced by a third party without giving notice to the third party of the notification. Hoffman Col 6 lines 52-55, According to a further embodiment of the invention, a means is provided for alerting predesignated authorities during an access attempt that the user has been coerced to request access by a third party.)
Regarding claim 39, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 35. Hoffman further discloses:
initiating one or more actions that suppress a standard transaction behavior (Hoffman Col 5 lines 31-42, Further, these objects are met by providing a security system and method in which certain programs and data within the computer access verification system are isolated from and inaccessible to the user, at least until the access requested has been granted. According to the invention, actual verification of user identity is isolated from possible tampering by the user requesting access. More importantly, all stored authenticated biometric data used in the verification process is also isolated from access by the user until the user's identity has been verified, thereby preventing the counterfeiting and reuse of the authenticated data to gain fraudulent access. Hoffman col 15 lines 59-67 & col 16 lines 1-21, According to another aspect of the invention, means for access limitation is provided. As will be understood, it is necessary for the access procedure to continue and everything appear to be normal to the coercing third party. However, once access is provided, the third party will be able to carry out any transaction authorized to the coerced user until the third party is satisfied or captured. The means for access limitation is designed to respond to this situation by automatically imposing limitations of the types and amounts of transaction that can be carried out when access has been coerced. Such means would be triggered automatically by activation of the emergency notification means and transmit an access limitation request to the computer system or systems to be accessed. This request would prompt the computer system to restrict access as predetermined by the authorized user, generating the necessary false screens and reports and providing the necessary false responses to inquires that would be necessary and consistent with the restricted access. For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions. Alternatively, the computer system may provide a false, but otherwise standard error message or display screen to indicate that a particular type of transaction or account is temporarily unavailable due to mechanical error or the like. It will be appreciated that means for achieving the impositions of such limitations are known and are in use currently by, for example, financial institutions when a customer reports a lost credit or ATM card.)
Nakano further teaches:
at the electronic wallet application (Nakano abstract, An electronic wallet system easy to use and having high security is provided. Nakano Col 2, lines 1-10, It is an object of the present invention to provide an electronic wallet system easy to use having high security, capable of automatically locking an IC card when it is unloaded from an IC card reader/writer, and automatically unlocking an IC card when loaded.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination Hoffman and Nakano with Nakano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to develop an electronic wallet with a security system that has additional security and control features for fraud prevention and regulatory compliance.
Regarding claim 40, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 39. Hoffman further discloses:
the alternative interface comprises one or more of a false indication that a transaction has been processed (Hoffman Col 7 lines 33-37, Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account.)
or a false indication of a minimized account balance. (Hoffman Col 7 lines 30-33, In such a case, the secured computer system would also generate temporary dummy accounts to reflect only enough money or credit to transact a particular transaction. Further, the secured computer may be configured to display that a particular transaction has taken place, but then abort the transaction, such as charging an item to a line of credit or wire transferring funds to another account. Hoffman Col 16, lines 10-12, For example, the user's checking account balance may be reduced to reflect an availability of funds consistent with restrictions.)
Claims 24, 27, 31, 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman and Nakano, and further in view of Bennison (US 11,405,189).
Regarding claim 24, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 22. The combination of Hoffman and Nakano do not disclose, however Bennison teaches:
communicating the alert to a provider associated with a transaction initiated at the electronic wallet application while in emergency mode. (Bennison Col 26 lines 49-59, The response in the event of entry of the secret duress password can be agreed to by the user and the remote authentication system and optionally the financial institution at the time of payment credential registration (as described in FIG. 3) and could optionally include either approval, denial or limitation of the transaction and possibly immediate notification of the nature of the distress signal and the location of the computing device (e.g., mobile device, smartphone) to local law enforcement authorities and/or the merchant's security office as applicable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Hoffman and Nakano with Bennison’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide real-time data, enabling the electronic wallet application to present an alternative interface via the user device, wherein provider to take actions that protect both transaction and the user.
Regarding claim 27, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 21. The combination of Hoffman and Nakano do not disclose, however Bennison teaches:
reporting a destination address to a provider associated with the transaction and an emergency services provider. (Bennison Col 26 lines 49-59, The response in the event of entry of the secret duress password can be agreed to by the user and the remote authentication system and optionally the financial institution at the time of payment credential registration (as described in FIG. 3) and could optionally include either approval, denial or limitation of the transaction and possibly immediate notification of the nature of the distress signal and the location of the computing device (e.g., mobile device, smartphone) to local law enforcement authorities and/or the merchant's security office as applicable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Hoffman and Nakano with Bennison’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to quickly dispatch the pertinent authorities to the user’s precise location. This would also enable real-time monitoring by the authorities or providers, allowing them to respond more effectively to the user’s situation.
Regarding claim 31, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 29. The combination of Hoffman and Nakano do not disclose, however Bennison teaches:
communicating the alert to a provider associated with a transaction initiated at the electronic wallet application while in emergency mode. (Bennison Col 26 lines 49-59, The response in the event of entry of the secret duress password can be agreed to by the user and the remote authentication system and optionally the financial institution at the time of payment credential registration (as described in FIG. 3) and could optionally include either approval, denial or limitation of the transaction and possibly immediate notification of the nature of the distress signal and the location of the computing device (e.g., mobile device, smartphone) to local law enforcement authorities and/or the merchant's security office as applicable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Hoffman and Nakano with Bennison’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide real-time data, enabling the provider to take actions that protect both transaction and the user.
Regarding claim 34, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 28. The combination of Hoffman and Nakano do not disclose, however Bennison teaches:
reporting a destination address to a provider associated with the transaction and an emergency services provider. (Bennison Col 26 lines 49-59, The response in the event of entry of the secret duress password can be agreed to by the user and the remote authentication system and optionally the financial institution at the time of payment credential registration (as described in FIG. 3) and could optionally include either approval, denial or limitation of the transaction and possibly immediate notification of the nature of the distress signal and the location of the computing device (e.g., mobile device, smartphone) to local law enforcement authorities and/or the merchant's security office as applicable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Hoffman and Nakano with Bennison’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to quickly dispatch the pertinent authorities to the user’s precise location. This would also enable real-time monitoring by the authorities or providers, allowing them to respond more effectively to the user’s situation.
Regarding claim 38, Hoffman and Nakano disclose each and every element of claim 36. The combination of Hoffman and Nakano do not disclose, however Bennison teaches:
communicating the alert to a provider associated with a transaction initiated at the electronic wallet application while in emergency mode. (Bennison Col 26 lines 49-59, The response in the event of entry of the secret duress password can be agreed to by the user and the remote authentication system and optionally the financial institution at the time of payment credential registration (as described in FIG. 3) and could optionally include either approval, denial or limitation of the transaction and possibly immediate notification of the nature of the distress signal and the location of the computing device (e.g., mobile device, smartphone) to local law enforcement authorities and/or the merchant's security office as applicable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Hoffman and Nakano with Bennison’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide real-time data, enabling the provider to take actions that protect both transaction and the user.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101:
The applicant presents several assertions in regards to the 101 rejection in the previous office action.
“Independent claims 21, 28, and 35 are not directed to a mental process or financial abstraction” and “reflect computer-specific functionality and interface manipulation that cannot be performed by a human mind, nor are they merely routine implementations of known business practices. They are tied to a particular software environment, and in operation, the system responds to user input in a non-conventional, crisis-aware manner”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the office has not characterized the claims as a mental process or financial abstraction, instead the claims were properly identified as falling within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. The claims recite using credentials to trigger an emergency response, deceiving an intruder through false displays and transmitting an alert to emergency providers. These steps are security and safety protocols for handling an emergency event which is an example of organizing human activity. In addition, the focus of the claim remains on controlling human interaction during a coercion event (i.e., deceiving a robber, alerting authorities). Such events represent human activities. Second, the recited implementation utilizing an electronic wallet or computer device is nothing more than the automation of these existing human activities using computing components. As per MPEP 2106.04(a), in step 2A prong one to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the specific limitations in the claim under examination must be identified and analyzed to determine whether they fall within at least one of the recognize groupings of abstract ideas. If one of the limitations in the examined claim falls within one of the groups, it is reasonable to conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea and the examination continues to step 2A prong two.
“The claims are thus directed to an improvement in the operation of computer-based security systems, not to an abstract idea per se.”. The examiner also disagrees with this assertion. There is no evidence in the claims of an improvement to the computer functionality. Instead the claims use the computing device as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
“The claims are integrated into a practical application that improves the operation of a digital wallet under duress conditions” and “the claims are analogous to USPTO example 37 and likewise present a novel technical solution to a real-world threat achieved via a non generic application behavior.”, the examiner these assertions not persuasive as well and respectfully disagrees. The claim merely implements managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as described above. In response, the examiner finds that a method for initializing an emergency mode by receiving an input comprising user credentials, determining if the user provided emergency credentials by comparing the received credentials to normal and emergency credentials, if emergency credentials are received provide instructions to execute an emergency mode and alert authorities does not provide any specific improvement to the functioning of the computer or technology. While the use of graphical interface to deceive a robber and initiate an emergency protocol may appear technical, they are merely applying the abstract idea. Further, the applying of the abstract idea does not improve upon the GUI nor does it improve upon wallet or user device. Regarding the comparison of the claims to example 37, the presented claims do not provide a comparable technical improvement to the user interface or user interaction as stated in the previous office action. The GUI changes recited in the current claims, such as displaying an incorrect balance, are not directed to improving the functionality of the interface itself but rather to misleading an intruder. These modifications are based on the credentials provided, not on the structure or function of the interface. The claimed method does not enhance the way the user interacts with the interface, nor does it solve a technical problem related to how user input is processed or presented. Therefore the applicant reliance on example 37 is misplaced, and the claimed subject matter remains directed to an abstract idea without a specific improvement to GUI technology or user interaction. As such, the claim does not recite any technological advancement or inventive integration beyond applying these tools to an abstract concept and thus fail to impose any meaningful limit that would transform the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of step 2A of the subject matter eligibility framework.
“The office improperly characterized features such as “displaying as false balance” as mere intended use” and “These components are not isolated field-of-use recitations or abstract outputs, they form a coordinated emergency response system that operates entirely within the technical context of a mobile wallet application, in response to specialized trigger input (emergency credentials).” Examiner respectfully disagrees to these statements. As previously explained, the recitation of “displaying a false balance or an alternative interface” is an intended use/result and not to any improvement in the functionality of the computing device or GUI. In regards to the assertion that these elements are not “isolated”, examiner disagrees. The fact that they are arranged together in response to a specialized trigger does not transform the abstract idea into a technological improvement.
“The claims embody a non-obvious and inventive solution that satisfies Step 2 of Alice framework”, the examiner finds it not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The claim invention fundamentally pertains to a method of receiving data, verifying it, determining the type of data and displaying it which is an implementation of certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, the additional elements of an electronic wallet application, a silent alarm engine, a sensor, a user device and an alternative interface, as recited in the claim, are merely additional elements representing conventional computer technologies employed to apply the underlying abstract idea. To meet the requirements for patent eligibility, the claim must do more than simply apply this abstract idea using generic technological tools. Finally, the applicant describes the system as non-obvious. Obviousness is a separate statutory requirement distinct from the eligibility analysis under 101. A claim may be non-obvious in view of the prior art but still lack an inventive concept under Step 2B. Therefore, the recited claim, does not include any additional features that rise to the level of an inventive concept under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework.
As such, the amended claims fail to meet the eligibility requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103:
The applicant presents several assertions to which the examiner disagrees.
The applicant asserts that Hoffman nor Nakano “teach or suggest providing instructions to the user device to communicate an alert to an emergency service provider the alert comprising a location of the user device, a message indicating a suspected robbery is in progress, and a notification to not communicate back to the user device”. Hoffman discloses emergency notification system that upon detection of unauthorized or involuntary access to a computer terminal, automatically communicate an alert to law enforcement authorities. Specifically, Hoffman teaches transmitting to the nearest police or designated law enforcement agency an alert that includes the locality of the access attempt (i.e. device location). See Hoffman, col 15 lines 30-42. While Hoffman doesn’t explicitly recite that “the message includes a notification to not communicate back to the user device”, it emphasizes the importance of secret operations to avoid alerting the enemy which provides a clear motivation to one skilled in the art to configure the alert to include an instruction to not communicate back with the user in order to prevent compromising the safety of the victim during a robbery or coercion scenario. Therefore the combination of Hoffman and Nakano renders obvious a wallet system that verifies user credentials input against stored emergency and normal credentials, communicates an alert to emergency services including device location, a message that an unauthorized access (coercion, robbery) is ongoing , and an instruction to not communicate back.
“Neither reference provides motivation or rationale for modifying a biometric authentication system or a teller-initiated deceptive mode system to include a credential-triggered emergency alert that (i) is automatically sent by the user device, (ii) includes specific situational content (e.g., suspected robbery), and (iii) instructs the recipient not to respond.” Contrary to applicant’s assertion that neither reference suggests an automatically transmitted alert by the user device, Hoffman discloses the use of emergency credentials, that upon detection, trigger the system to automatically send an alert to law enforcement agencies, including the locality of the access attempt (i.e., device location) (col 15 lines 30-42). Hoffman further teaches that such mechanism is not limited to teller terminals but are adaptable to pay-point devices, and other communication devices such as personal computers, televisions, telephones and any other device capable of communication with a computer network (col 11 lines 2-7). Additionally, although, Hoffman does not explicitly state “a notification to not communicate back to the user device”, it emphasizes the importance of secret operations to avoid alerting the enemy which provides a clear motivation to one skilled in the art to configure the alert to include an instruction to not communicate back with the user.
Nguyen is directed to a different field and is not logically or functionally compatible with Hoffman and/or Nakano. While Nakano addresses 911 follow up notifications it still teaches the use of automated messaging to external recipients upon detection of an emergency event. The core concept of Nguyen teaching is the automated transmission of a message containing contextual information to a designated party; in this case a family member however it could be expanded to other entities such as emergency responders, police or the like. Nguyen states that “the emergency call notification message also recommends that the emergency contact attempt to directly contact the subscriber first (after a reasonable delay) to avoid interfering with any potential police, medical and/or fire response.” which reads on “a notification to not communicate back to the user device”. Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the deceptive system from Hoffman and the wallet system from Nakano with the message content configuration of Nguyen in order to provide a more reliable alert that would help maintain the alert confidentiality. However, the examiner considers that Nguyen is unnecessary as Hoffman already emphasizes the importance of secret operations to avoid alerting the enemy which provides a clear motivation to one skilled in the art to configure the alert to include an instruction to not communicate back with the user.
“Incorporating Nguyen into the teachings of Hoffman and Nakano would frustrate the intended purpose of the combined system”. Hoffman presents an emergency deceptive system that can be implement in different network connected devices. Nakano teaches a wallet system that utilizes biometric input to validate users. Nguyen teaches automated emergency messages containing contextual information (i.e. device location, instructions, etc). Therefore, far from frustrating its purpose, combining these teaches would yield a wallet system that detects emergency credentials and automatically transmits an emergency alert containing data and instructions to an emergency provider.
“Examiner has failed to articulate a reasoned motivation to combine under MPEP 2143.01” A clear rationale exists because each cited reference addresses related aspects of emergency response systems, and their combination represents a predictable use of known elements to yield a more robust and complete system.
In summary, Hoffman and Nakano, disclose or suggest all key functional aspects recited on the claims. Therefore, the features identified by the applicant are in fact, anticipated or rendered obvious by the teachings of Hoffman and Nakano when views through the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the prior art continues to read on the claims.
Conclusion
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 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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0201537 A1 to Sampas discloses: The tracking of user authentication is disclosed. A first user biometric data set is received from a mobile device on an authentication server, and a second user biometric data set is received from a site resource on the authentication server. The second user biometric is transmitted from the site resource in response to receipt of an authentication command from the mobile device on the site resource. The user is rejected for access to the site resource in the event of an authentication failure. A security procedure is initiated on at least one of the mobile device and a remote physical device separate from the mobile device in response to the rejecting of the user for access to the site resource.
US 5,838,812 A to Pare Jr. et al discloses: A tokenless identification system and method for authorization of transactions and transmissions is described. The tokenless system and method are principally based on a correlative comparison of a unique biometrics sample, such as a finger print or voice recording, gathered directly from the person of an unknown user, with an authenticated biometrics sample of the same type obtained and stored previously. The method and apparatus can be networked to act as a full or partial intermediary between other independent computer systems, or may be the sole computer systems carrying out all necessary executions. The method and apparatus further contemplates the use of a private code that is returned to the user after the identification has been complete, authenticating and indicating to the user that the computer system was accessed. The identification system and method of the invention additionally include emergency notification process to permit an authorized user to alert authorities an access attempt is coerced.
CA 2629271 A1 to Martin et al. discloses: A multi-stage verification system including a first and second identification device to verify the identity of the user and to determine if the user is under duress. When a user approaches an entrance to a building, a first identifier is detected by the first identification device, the identifier is compared to a pre-stored identifier. If there is a match, the user inputs at least one biometric input into the second identification device. The biometric input is compares with pre-stored information in two different databases, a biometric template database and a duress indicator database. If there is a match with the duress indicator database, a silent alarm signal is transmitted to a central monitoring station and the security system is disarmed. If there is a match with the biometric template database, the security system is controlled in the intended manner.
US 20150230072 A1 to Saigh et al. discloses: Described embodiments provide a system for alerting emergency responders to the existence of an emergency situation. The system includes multiple mobile devices in communication with a mobile communications network. Each mobile device includes an encapsulator for capturing encapsulation data from one or more data sensors of the mobile device. Each mobile device can be placed into an alert mode by a user of the mobile device. An emergency database in communication with the mobile communications network and one or more emergency response dispatchers receives, from one or more mobile devices in the alert mode, the encapsulation data, in substantially real-time. The emergency database sends an emergency alert notification to one or more alert groups associated with the users of each mobile devices in alert mode. Each mobile device sends an emergency alert notification to one or more additional mobile devices in a predetermined physical proximity to the mobile device.
US 2008/0102785 A1 to Childress et al. discloses: A means for a person in distress to use a mobile device to communicate covertly with an Emergency Response Center is provided. The means contains a response designed not to alert an abductor of the communication as well as to indicate whether the person is indeed in distress. The means also allows the Emergency Response Center to locate both the distressed person and a mobile device using GPS or triangulation. The device may be in regular operation mode or in distress mode. When the device is in the distress mode, it will appear to be in normal operating mode if in operation or it will appear to be off if off. In addition, the device may be used for forensic purposes since it may provide voice and video data of the situation at an emergency location to the Emergency Response Center.
US 8295445 B2 to Nguyen et al. discloses: Automatic notification is provided to pre-designated emergency contacts for a given wireless subscriber upon the occurrence of an emergency call from the subscriber. Triggering for the automatic notification may take place at an appropriate time in the emergency call, e.g., at a time the emergency call is received, at a time during the emergency call after a current location of the emergency caller is obtained by the emergency network, once the emergency call terminates, after a set amount of time after the emergency call is received, terminates, etc. The automatic notification is preferably made using voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), but may instead be pre-designated by the subscriber to be in an alternative mode, e.g., by SMS, switched telephone, etc. An option is included for the emergency caller to cancel the automatic notification. The location of the emergency caller may be configurably provided to a notified emergency contact.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights