Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 12/16/2025.
Priority
No claim for priority has been made in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1:
A method for cross-channel verification of a communication, the method comprising, at a mobile device: at a mobile device, launching a mobile device background application, the background application configured to interact with [[an]] a mobile device SMS application and [[an]] a mobile device enterprise mobile application, the background application undetectable to a mobile device user; at the background application, scanning a communication received by a user at the SMS application for [[a]] embedded security marker; when the security marker is not present, displaying an alert associated with the communication at the enterprise mobile application; and when the security marker is present, displaying a cleared notice associated with the communication at the enterprise mobile application. [wherein access to the SMS application is associated with a first level of security and access to the enterprise application is associated with a second level of security, the second level of security higher than the first level of security]
First this limitation is in [ ]
So the examiner is unsure if applicant intended to claim this.
Secondly the examiner does not understand
wherein access to the SMS application is associated with a first level of security and access to the enterprise application is associated with a second level of security
Claim state that “scanning a communication received by a user at the SMS application for [[a]] embedded security marker” and then “when the security marker is not present, displaying an alert associated with the communication at the enterprise mobile application” there is no security marker at the enterprise level previous in the claim so it lacks antecedent basis to introduce a “second level of security” what is this a second password as second encryption? This is confusing and lacks antecedent basis and unclear to examiner.
Also what does it mean that “the second level of security higher than the first level of security”. Does that mean if password one is correct and password two is not then it still passes?
Corrective action is required.
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.
All claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims are directed to a method, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of: A method for cross-channel verification of a communication, the method comprising: at a mobile device, launching a background application, the background application configured to interact with an SMS application and an enterprise mobile application; at the background application, scanning a communication received at the SMS application for a security marker; when the security marker is not present, displaying an alert associated with the communication at the enterprise mobile application; and when the security marker is present, displaying a cleared notice associated with the communication at the enterprise mobile application, [wherein access to the SMS application is associated with a first level of security and access to the enterprise application is associated with a second level of security, the second level of security higher than the first level of security].
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “displaying a cleared notice associated with the communication at the enterprise mobile application” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “SMS application and an enterprise mobile application; at the background application” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardi=Ber (U.S. Patent 10873852) in view of Cao (U.S. Patent 7949603) in view of Sahu (U.S. Patent Pub 20170024657)
Re claim 1: Ber discloses:
A method for cross-channel verification of a communication, the method comprising at a mobile device: (see Ber Figure 9-21)
launching a mobile device background application, the background application configured to interact with aa mobile device SMS application and a mobile device enterprise mobile application, the background application undetectable to a mobile device user (see Ber Fig 6A-6G + Figure 4 note cloud is in background)
at the background application, scanning a communication received by a user at the SMS application for embedded security marker; (see Ber Fig 6A-6G + fig 16 item 1-8 + )
when the security marker is not present, displaying an alert associated with the communication at the enterprise application; and (see Ber Fig 6C + Fig 16 item 8-12 + Fig 12, 20-21)
when the security marker is present, displaying a cleared notice associated with the communication at the enterprise application. (see Ber Fig 6C + Fig 16 item 8-12 + Fig 12, 20-21)
[wherein access to the SMS application is associated with a first level of security and access to the enterprise application is associated with a second level of security, the second level of security higher than the first level of security] (see Ber Fig 6C + Fig 16 item 8-12 + Fig 12, 20-21)
Ber does not explicitly teach “in the background”, Sahu teaches that a mobile application can run continuously in the background (see Sahu para 0084) the examiner should also note the idea that a mobile application software can run in the background takes examiner notice that many application on our phones and computer “run in the background” and while that may be a design choice it holds little patentable weight. And while examiner believes, Ber teaches the features of applicant, should the limitations be argued and for the sake of compact prosecution additional reference, Cao additionally teaches the limitations of the applicant.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Ber by adapting any features of Cao and Sahu.
It is clear that one would be motivated by the teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, both Ber teaches SMS system that is adapted in Cao system and Sahu background application.
Cao specifically teaches:
A method for cross-channel verification of a communication, the method comprising: (see Cao Figure 1, 4)
at a mobile device, launching a background application, the background application configured to interact with an SMS application and an enterprise mobile application; (see Cao Figure 1, 4)
at the background application, scanning a communication received at the SMS application for a security marker; (see Cao Fig 3C-3D + Fig 4 item 405-408)
when the security marker is not present, displaying an alert associated with the communication at the enterprise mobile application; and (see Cao Fig 3C-3D + Fig 4 item 405-408)
[wherein access to the SMS application is associated with a first level of security and access to the enterprise application is associated with a second level of security, the second level of security higher than the first level of security
Re claim 2: see claim 1 +
launching the background application in response to authentication of a mobile device user at the enterprise mobile application.
Re claim 3: see claim 1 +
further comprising, displaying a selectable option at the enterprise mobile application to launch the background application. (see Ber Fig 6A-6G + fig 16 item 1-8)
Re claim 4: see claim 1 +
wherein a scan at the background application is limited to matching a visual cue. (see Ber Fig 6C + Fig 16 item 8-12 + Fig 12, 20-21)
Re claim 5: see claim 1 +
wherein the visual cue is a security passphrase. (see Ber Fig 6C + Fig 16 item 8-12 + Fig 12, 20-21)
Re claim 6: see claim 1 +
the communication received at the SMS application comprising a first communication, the background application further configured to interact with an email application, the method further comprising: at the background application, scanning a second communication received at the email application for the security marker; when the security marker is not present, displaying an alert associated with the second communication at the enterprise mobile application; and when the security marker is present, displaying a cleared notice associated with the second communication on a communication log at the enterprise mobile application. (see Ber column 2 lines 34-42 + Fig 6C + Fig 16 item 8-12 + Fig 12, 20-21)
Re claim 7: see claim 1 +
further comprising limiting the scan of the second communication to an email header. (see Ber column 2 lines 34-42 + Fig 6C + Fig 16 item 8-12 + Fig 12, 20-21)
Re claim 8: see claim 1 +
further comprising, when the security marker is not present, locking a financial account associated with a user of the mobile device. (see Ber column 2 lines 34-42 + Fig 6C + Fig 16 item 8-12 + Fig 12, 20-21)
Re claim 9: see claim 1 +
further comprising, when the security marker is not present, disabling a selectable link in the communication. (see Ber column 2 lines 34-42 + Fig 6C + Fig 16 item 8-12 + Fig 12, 20-21)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In particular, and respect to Claim 1 the Applicant primary argued: prior art did not teach “at the background application, scanning a communication received by a user at the SMS application for embedded security marker”
The Examiner refutes the argument made by the Applicant and draws the attention to Ber Figure 6A-6G. It is inherent that this application is running most of the functionality in the background. Also, Sahu teaches that a mobile application can run continuously in the background (see Sahu para 0084) the examiner should also note the idea that a mobile application software can run in the background takes examiner notice that many application on our phones and computer “run in the background” and while that may be a design choice it holds little patentable weight.
The examiner has read the remarks of 101 and respectfully disagrees with the interpretation and arguments. The examiner has taken into consideration the claim amendments and remains firm on the 101 rejection.
The examiner would also like to note that it was proper to go final as there were claim amendments that necessitated additional art as there is in this new RCE application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KLASSEN et al., U.S. Patent Pub 2011/0055546, discloses a method, is disclosed in which available features on a slave mobile device are managed (monitored or controlled) by a slave manager module commanded by a master device through secure messages exchanged between the two devices using respective electronic messaging capabilities on the two devices.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693