CTNF 18/207,073 CTNF 84029 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/25 has been entered. DETAILED ACTION Applicant filed an amendment on 12/5/25. Claims 1-20 were pending. No claims are added or cancelled herein. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 10, 19 and 20 are amended. After careful consideration applicant arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection this action is a non-final office action. 35 USC 101- the rejection is not applicable because it’s a technical application directed to motion signatures which is not an abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3,5-12,14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabosville 20130218775 In view of Herwig 20160224962, US Patent Publication 20170103388 to Pillai and US Patent 9032498 to Ben Ayed As per claim 1, Dabosville discloses; A computer-implemented method for use in authenticating a user to a payment account in connection with a transaction by the user using the payment account, the method comprising: detecting, by a computing device, by a user directed to a payment account of the user; Dabosville(0029, authorization request, merchant 0051,0081) in response to the authorization request for the transaction, transmitting, by the computing device, to a communication device of the user, an authentication request, Dabosville(0055) the authentication request including an instruction, Dabosville(0055) consistent with a motion signature, to move the communication device in a defined manner, whereby the user is directed to move the communication device in the defined manner; and then receiving, by the computing device, from the communication device, an indication of movement of the communication device in response to based on the authentication request, Dabosville(0055) the indication including per unit time values of the movement measured by at least one of a gyro sensor and/or an accelerometer included in the communication device; comparing, by the computing device, based on one or more Dabosville(0048, choice of gyro or accelerometer, in this case the choice is accelerometer, 0054) and based on a match between the movement of the communication device and the motion signature, communicating, by the computing device, an authentication success message for the transaction [[user]] to an issuer of the payment account. Dabosville(0109,perform a movement comprising… rotations…. To allow access, 0065 compare Dabosivlle does not explicitly disclose what Herwig teaches; curve/pattern matching algorithms, the movement of the communication device, from the indication, to the motion signature; Herwig(0023 motion signature) It would therefore have been obvious to combine the motion signature of Dabosville with the pattern matching algorithm (software) of Herwig for the motivation allow a system better process signatures for financial transactions. (0003) Here Dabosville and Herwig do not explicitly disclose what Pillai teaches; from an acquirer associated with a merchant, an authorization request for a transaction with the merchant Pillai(0068, may receive an authorization or validation request re: merchant subsystem) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Pillai with the disclosure of Dabosville for the motivation of ”secure … commerce” (0003) Dabosville, Herwig and Pillai do not explicitly disclose what Ben Ayed teaches; determining whether the payment account is registered, based on a payment account credential in the authorization request; based on the payment account being registered, and Ben Ayed (col. 4 lines 35-45) registered It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosure of Dabosville with the registration teachings of Ben Ayed for the motivation of “adaptive authentication… for better security” (col. 1 lines 50-55) Claims 10, 19 are rejected similar to claim 1. As per claims 2, 11, Dabosville discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the defined manner of the motion signature includes a motion consistent with a reference movement. Dabosville (0100, the movement has to be corresponding to his pin and thus there is a reference movement that is measured to determine if the movement matches) As per claim Dabosville discloses; The system of claim 11, wherein the reference movement includes multiple movements; and wherein the instruction includes instructions directing the user to move the communication device, sequentially, consistent with the multiple movements of the reference movement. Dabosville (0100) As per claim 3 Dabosville, The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the reference movement includes multiple movements; and Wherein the instruction to move the communication device includes multiple instructions to move the communication device, sequentially, consistent with the multiple movements. Dabosville (0109, a plurality of rotations…. It appears that various movements are measured) Here in regards to “multiple movement instructions” as amended to mean separate movements, See Herwig, 0043, series of movements or motion. The motivation for combination would be same as provided for claim 1. As per claims 5, 20, Dabosville discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the defined manner is a motion signature registered, through the communication device, by the user. Dabosville (0078) As per claims 6, 15 Dabosville discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising generating, by the computing device, the authentication request to include the instruction to move the communication device in the defined manner. Dabosville (0069,83, defined is general term) As per claims 7, 14 Dabosville discloses; The system of claim 10, wherein the motion signature is a motion signature registered, prior to the transaction, through the communication device, by the user. Dabosville (0069 and 0083, PINs are set up ahead of time) As per claims 7, 16 Dabosville discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to the transaction: generating, by the computing device, the motion signature based on the movement of the communication device; and storing, by the computing device, in memory, the motion signature as unique to the user. Dabosville (0069) As per claims 8, Dabosville discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising determining, prior to transmitting the authentication request, that the communication device is registered based on a payment account credential included in the authorization request. Dabosville (0095) As per claims 9, 17 Dabosville discloses; The system of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the instruction to move the communication device in the defined manner based on the stored motion signature, which is unique to the user in the memory, based on the payment account credential included in the authorization request. Dabosville (0069, a pin would be a motion signature that is unique) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabosville 20130218775 In view of Herwig 20160224962 and US Patent Publication 20170103388 to Pillai and US Patent 9032498 to Ben Ayed further in view of US Patent Publication 20140063054 to Osterhout As per claims 4, 13, Dabosville discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the multiple movements define a shape. Dabosville (0062 pattern) In regards to the amended, motion in the shape of a letter (box, circle and/or a letter) which is interpreted as “or” Osterhout teaches; letter, (0476, finger motion in the shape of a letter) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the control technology of Osterhout with the authorization of Dabosville for the motivation of using various technology for other purposes (0006) Response to Arguments Applicant filed an amendment on 12/5/25. Claims 1-20 were pending. No claims are added or cancelled herein. Thus, Claims 1-20 remain pending Claims 1, 10, 19 and 20 are amended. After careful consideration applicant arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection this action is a non-final office action. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 A. Dabosville, Herwig, and Pillai Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Dabosville et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0218775, hereinafter "Dabosville") in view of Herwig (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0224962, hereinafter "Herwig") and Pillai et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103388, hereinafter "Pillai"). This rejection is respectfully traversed for at least the following reasons. Independent Claim 1 (redacted) Claim 1 is amended to require determining that the payment account is registered, based on a payment account credential in the authorization request before proceeding . This limitation is not included in Dabosville, or Herwig or Pillai, as cited. As such, the suggested combination is deficient. Here “before” is not claimed but in view of the amendment, the examiner offers Ben Ayed to teach the registered element. Thus applicant arguments are generally moot. Dabosville merely discloses that "the user U performs the movement MOV instructed by the image IMG (step S5) while the sensor 44 measures the movement MOV and the secure element 4 determines data D on the basis of the measured movement MOV (step S6)." The data D, as apparent from FIG 8, is a sequence of numbers (based on rotation of the terminal 2, which moves the arrow to specific numbers). Further, each input through the movement is numeric, i.e., data D, amount and PIN. See, e.g., 10110, etc. It is clear, in Dabosville, that there is no disclosure of the specific per unit time values of the movement (as measured by the gryo sensor and/or the accelerometer) being received from a communication device. Dabosville is deficient. And, neither Herwig nor Pillai are cited as supplementing Dabosville with regard to this feature. Further still, the Office relies on Dabosville to disclose comparing the movement of the communication device, from the indication, to the motion signature. See, Office action dated Oct. 3, 2025, at p. 3, citing 10055, 10065 and 10109. There is no comparison of movement to a motion signature. Rather, in 10055, for example, the sensor 44 measures the motion of the movement and the secure element 4 "determines data D" from measuring the movement. This is illustrated in FIG. 8, where the movement of the terminal causes the arrow to be indicative of a specific number. That is, when the user rotates the terminal the arrow points to a specific number, which is the specific data that the secure element determines. The movement is therefore certainly measured, but the movement is NOT compar ed t o a motion signature (i.e., was the terminal moved consistent with a defined movement). Further, at 10065, Dabosville discloses whether the numeric sequence or data S matches what is expected. As explained in 10109, "[w]hen the user rotates the terminal 2 so that the arrow 211 indicates a specific number of the dial 210 and stops in this position, the secure element 4 considers that this specific number has been entered. By repeating this, the user can perform a movement MOV comprising a plurality of rotations and stops and which corresponds, for the secure element 4, to a succession of numbers." Emphasis added. The succession of numbers is what is compared, not the movement itself. Notably, the secure element 4 is within the terminal 2, which is moved. It is not theref ore being performed by a computing device, which is separate from the communication device - as is required in Claim 1. As such, Dabosville is again deficient, and the suggested combination that relies on Dabosville for this limitation is also deficient. Moreover, because there is no comparison of data representative of actual movement of the terminal 2 in Dabosville , there is no reason to employ the alleged pattern matching algorithm in Herwig to the sensor measuring of the movement of the terminal in Dabosville. What's more, there is no basis to suggest that adding the pattern matching algorithm of Herwig to Dabosville would at all improve the processing of signatures for financial transactions. See, Office action dated Oct. 3, 2025, at p. 3. Still further, there is no indication how a curve/pattern matching algorithm would permit the terminal 2 to "better process signatures for financial transactions." See, Id. There is no signatures in Dabosville, only data D, which is a PIN, for example. And, additional reference to Pillai does not remedy this shortcoming. As such, the suggested combination is improper and should be withdrawn. Here Herwig is offered for the motion specifics that Dabosville lacks. Applicant further argues that there is not motivation to combine the disclosure of Dabosville and the teaching of Herwig but, a motivation has been provided. The examiner notes that on review of Dabosville that the if there is no signature, the term signature is employed multiple times to describe the movement of the user. Is the “signature” of applicant supposed be different that the Signature of Dabosville. In this case maybe it’s a name signature or something like that as Dabosville clearly describes signature. Claims 10, 19 are argues similar to claim 1. the dependent claims are argued by virtue of dependency on claims 1, 10 or 19. Conclusion The following art of record was identified Secure remote mobile payment architecture and application, IEEE 2010 Instant payment versus smartphone payment: The big fight, IEEE 2017 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday. 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 W Anderson can be reached at 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 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. /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 2 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 3 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 4 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 5 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 6 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 7 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 8 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 9 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 10 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 11 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/207,073 Page 12 Art Unit: 3693
Prosecution Insights