DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that Examiner misapplied Cosmokey and that ultimately what matters is that the solution in ComsoKey improved computer network security and thus their invention should also be eligible through improving computer or network security. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Simply having a narrowly recited set of ordered steps does not itself provide an improvement to technology. “The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible).” See MPEP 2106.04(I). Narrowing the judicial exception to the particular use case or context applicant describes does not negate the fact that the claim(s) recites and/or describes a judicial exception. Furthermore, as cited in CosmoKey the specification made clear that the claimed invention improved upon computer and network security. Unlike in CosmoKey, applicant’s specification is not focused on an improvement in computer or network security capabilities, but rather is focused on implementation of a business practice (i.e. fraud detection, See at least paragraph [0002] and [0006] of the specification) using generic computer components. The case of CosmoKey is not analogous to the instant application.
Applicant argues that like in McRO, a human mind cannot perform the generating a trained machine learning model step and cannot use a natural language processing algorithm thus rendering the instant claim set eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A human can (with the help of pen and paper) perform modelling and apply said model’s algorithm to determine various scores even if said input data constitutes an e-mail address. Regarding the machine learning and natural language processing: “The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Id. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Further, the Supreme Court found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would "exalt[] form over substance", because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula. 437 U.S. at 590, 198 USPQ at 197.” See MPEP 2106.05(h). The recitation of machine learning and natural language processing does not alter or affect how the process steps of age-based fraud detection are performed. The recitation of machine learning and natural language processing does not constitute an integration into practical application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“…output, based in an input e-mail…” should be “…output, based on an input e-mail…”
Appropriate correction 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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a method, apparatus and non-transitory media for multiple-factor authentication of age when making age-based purchases. These are a process, machine, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 11 and 20:
Claim 1, 11 and 20:
“…using training data comprising a plurality of archived e-mails and corresponding user ages, a…model to output, based in an input e-mail, a range of user ages corresponding to the input e-mail;”
“receiving,…, an authentication request indicating a request to authenticate a user;”
“after the receiving the first archived e-mail, sending,…, a request for access to a second inbox storing a plurality of second archived e-mails associated with the e-mail address;”
“receiving,…, a message granting access to the second inbox;”
“processing content of the plurality of second archived e-mails to identify a reading score associated with the content;”
“identifying a predicted age of the user by processing,…, content of the plurality of second archived e-mails to determine a reading score associated with the content;”
“providing, to the trained…model, one or more e-mails of the plurality of second archived e-mails;”
“receiving, as output from the trained…model, an estimated user age range for the user;”
“determining, based on the reading score associated with the content and the estimated user age range, the predicted age of the user;”
“providing, to the trained…model, one or more e-mails of the plurality of second archived e-mails;”
“identifying, by querying a KBA database based on the predicted age of the user, one or more authentication questions related to historical information predicted to be known by individuals of the predicted age of the user;”
“causing the user computing device to display the one or more authentication questions;”
“receiving,…, one or more candidate answers to the one or more authentication questions;”
“determining whether to authorize,…, the authentication request based on:”
“comparing the one or more candidate answers to one or more correct answers stored by the KBA database;
“determining,…, that the user matches at least one of the original sender of the first archived e-mail or the original recipient of the first archived e-mail;”
“determining,…, based on a time indicated by the first archived e-mail, a minimum age of the first archived e-mail;”
“determining,…, based on the predicted age of the user, and based on the minimum age of the first archived e-mail, a minimum age of the user;”
“based on determining to authorize the authentication request, transmitting an authorization message…”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices or Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a first computing device”, “a second computing device”, “a user computing device”, “one or more processors”, “memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:” or “one or more non-transitory media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices or Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Mitigating Risk or could reasonably describe Sales Activities. Mitigating Risk is described when authenticating a user’s age, thus mitigating the risk that an underage user is purchasing an age-restricted product. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices or Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20:
“generating a trained machine learning model by training,…machine learning”
“…by a first computing device and from a second computing device…”
“sending, from the first computing device and to the second computing device, a verification e-mail address;”
“receiving, at the first computing device, via a first inbox of the verification e-mail address, and from an e-mail address associated with the user, a first archived e-mail, wherein the first archived e-mail was forwarded to the verification e-mail address;”
“…by the first computing device and to a user computing device associated with the user…”
“…from the user computing device…”
“…by the first computing device and using one or more natural language processing algorithms…”
“…machine learning…”
“…machine learning…”
“…from the user computing device…”
“…by the first computing device…”
“…by the first computing device…”
“…by the first computing device and…”
“…by the first computing device…”
“…to the second computing device.”
Claim 11:
“A first computing device…”
“one or more processors;”
“memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first computing device to:”
Claim 20:
“One or more non-transitory media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first computing device, cause the one or more processors to… by causing the one or more processors to perform steps comprising:”
The computer components or other machinery (computing devices, processors, memory, non-transitory media) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing devices, a generic processor, and generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer or using machinery as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The sending and receiving step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally sending and generally receiving) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of natural language processing algorithms and machine learning/machine learning training is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The computing devices mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See paragraph [0021] of the specification). The component is described as:
“The first computing device 102 may be any type of computing device, including a mobile or a portable device. For example, the first computing device 102 may be a smartphone, a laptop, a tablet, a desktop, or an equivalent thereof. The first computing device 102 may be a wireless user computing device. The first computing device 102 may be associated with a first user that uses the first computing device 102 to browse the Internet and/or World Wide Web.”
The processor(s) mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See paragraph [0050] of the specification). The component is described as:
“Processor 202 may comprise a single central processing unit (CPU), which may be a single-core or multi-core processor, or may comprise multiple CPUs. Processor(s) 202 and associated components may allow the computing device 200 to execute a series of computer-readable instructions (e.g., instructions stored in RAM 204, ROM 206, memory 214, and/or in other memory of computing device 200) to perform some or all of the processes described herein. Although not shown in FIG. 2, various elements within memory 214 or other components in computing device 200, may comprise one or more caches, for example, CPU caches used by the processor 202, page caches used by the operating system 218, disk caches of a hard drive, and/or database caches used to cache content from database 222. A CPU cache may be used by one or more processors 202 to reduce memory latency and access time. A processor 202 may retrieve data from or write data to the CPU cache rather than reading/writing to memory 214, which may improve the speed of these operations.”
The memory and non-transitory media mentioned above is/are disclosed in applicant’s specification (See paragraph [0046] of the specification). The component is described as:
“Memory 214 may comprise one or more physical persistent memory devices and/or one or more non-persistent memory devices. Memory 214 may comprise RAM, ROM, electronically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that may be used to store the desired information and that may be accessed by processor 202.”
Therefore applicant’s own specification supports these components as generic computer components.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for sending/receiving various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-10 and 12-19 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes a prior art search was performed and although each individual element may be found in the prior art, the combination of elements claimed requires too many references to cover such that the combination would not be rendered obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Campbell et al. (US 11,924,219 B1) discloses email and social media based age attribute analysis.
Joshi et al. (US 12,488,348 B1) discloses inputting email address data into machine learning models.
Agarwal et al. (US 11,734,737 B2) discloses purchase mechanisms for age-restricted merchandise.
Metnick (US 2023/0078239 A1) discloses comparing a buyer’s email address age to an age threshold.
Gadewar et al. (US 2022/0198408 A1) discloses utilizing age of a payment account associated with email address of the account for transaction rules.
Graham et al. (WO 2018/167570 A2) discloses requesting documentation from a user for age verification including email addresses.
Hurry et al. (WO 2022/081619 A1) discloses verifying a user’s age via biometric scans and comparison via third party databases and determination if a person is overly intoxicated.
Wokaty JR. (US 2024/0257196 A1) discloses subject matter disclosed by the applicant which is similar to the instant subject matter.
Walker et al. (US 2023/0061819 A1) discloses verification for age restricted purchases via communication tokens.
Bermudez (US 2021/0390556 A1) discloses applicant’s past subject matter of similar field to the instant subject matter.
Yingst et al. (US 2015/0379516 A1) discloses authenticating information associated with third party transactions associated with age restricted items.
Haugh et al. (US 8,355,992 B1) discloses verifying age of a controlled substance purchase.
Maheshwari et al. (US 2022/0005047 A1) discloses age verification through comparison with third party accounts.
Patel et al. (US 2021/0279994 A1) discloses determining a risk score associated with a user’s age based on purchase history including purchase activity across different locations or states.
Argawal et al. (US 2020/0098023 A1) discloses a customer transmitting identification documentation for receipt for age restricted items.
Carr et al. (US 2007/0205266 A1) discloses a laundry list of documents which may be used for identity verification.
Maheshwari et al. (US 2022/0005047 A1) discloses age verification performed at a mobile device.
Mokhasi et al. (US 2020/0382327 A1) discloses creation of KBA using social media data.
Agarwal et al. (US 2008/0052226 A1) discloses usage of pop culture phrases for transaction authentication.
Authors et al. (“(RSS) Enhanced Loyalty Card To Automate The Purchasing Of Age-Related Items During The Check Out Process”) discloses age verification via user biometrics.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691