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 the Claims
This is a final official action rejection prepared in response to applicant’s amendment for U.S. Patent Application 18/232,994 filed on 04/21/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 14 and 20 are amended.
Claims 21-50 are cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Claims 11-20 are directed to a system. 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 1, 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 comprising:
based at least in part on detecting that a user device is in proximity to a point-of-sale device, receiving biometric data from the user device over a first duration of time;
receiving, at the point-of-sale device, a request for a transaction associated with the user device, wherein the request for the transaction is received at an end of the first duration of time;
based on receiving the request for the transaction, determining that the biometric data received over the first duration of time indicates a threshold change in an affective state of a user corresponding to the user device;
determining a probability that a user initiated the transaction under duress based at least in part on the threshold change in the affective state of the user; and
based at least in part on determining that the probability is greater than or equal to a threshold probability level, initiating a supplemental action for the transaction.
Claim 1, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method to enable payment transactions or user access validation based on user state by receiving a first set of biometric data; receiving a request for a transaction; determining that the biometric data indicates a change in a threshold related to the user affective state; determining a probability that the user requested the transaction under duress based on the change in threshold; initiating a supplemental action based on determining that the probability is greater or equal to a threshold level. Claim 11 is significantly similar to claim 1. As such claim 11 also recites 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 activities, i.e., mitigating risk in transaction.
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. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply
the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally
link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not
indicative of a practical application. Here, the additional elements of a user device, input/output circuitry and a point-of-sale device 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 2-10 and 12-20 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 2-10 and 12-20 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2 and 12 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 supplemental action for the transaction comprises flagging the transaction for additional review.
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.
Claims 3 and 13 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 supplemental action for the transaction comprises requesting authorization from a secondary device associated with the user, and
wherein the method further comprises: receiving the authorization from the secondary device; and in response to receiving the authorization from the secondary device, approving the transaction.
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 a secondary device 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 elements, 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 4 and 14 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 supplemental action comprises capturing image data and audio data from one or more image sensors and audio sensors in proximity to the point-of-sale device after the biometric data was received.
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 a secondary device 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 elements, 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 5 and 15 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
determining the probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress comprises determining the probability based on a transaction history of the user.
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.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
determining the probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress based on secondary biometric data captured by a secondary device associated with the user.
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 a secondary device 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 elements, 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 7 and 17 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 secondary biometric data comprises raw data,
the method further comprising: receiving, by a point-of-sale system comprising the point-of-sale device, the raw data from the secondary device; and
determining, by the point-of-sale system, the probability that the user is initiating the transaction under duress based on the raw data.
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 point-of-sale system and a secondary device fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, 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. 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 8 and 18 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, by a point-of-sale system comprising the point-of-sale device from the secondary device, a first probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress, wherein the first probability is determined at the secondary device based on the secondary biometric data captured by the secondary device; and
selecting as the probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress, the first probability received from the secondary device.
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 point-of-sale system and a secondary device fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, 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. 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 9 and 19 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, from the secondary device, an indication of a threshold change in the secondary biometric data during a time period prior to the transaction; and
determining the probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress based on the threshold change in the secondary biometric data during the time period prior to the transaction.
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 a secondary device 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 elements, 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 10 and 20 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
after receiving the biometric data corresponding to the transaction, detecting a gesture input; and
selecting a payment method for the transaction based on the gesture input.
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 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 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausen (US 20210334813 A1) in view of Taveau (US 10496979 B2).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Clausen discloses:
based at least in part on detecting that a user device is in proximity (¶0027, In a further example, the financial institution computing system 120 may receive, via the identification circuit 132, biometric data when the user is determined to be at the bank and/or ATM based on biometric data gathered from an audio and/or video surveillance device at or near the bank and/or ATM. The surveillance device may be positioned within the banking area, near the ATM area, and/or in the drive-through area. In some arrangements, the surveillance device may be configured to capture a video and/or audio of the customer before (e.g., 30 seconds, 60 seconds, etc. prior) the customer engages in a transaction, makes a payment. ¶0029, The financial institution computing system 120 may be configured to receive, via the locator 112 and/or the connected device 110, location data associated with the customer. In some arrangements, the connected device 110 transmits location data determined based on GPS coordinates, cellular network triangulation data, etc., to the financial institution computing system 120. The location data may indicate the position of the customer as the biometric data is received. For example, the connected device 110 may indicate that the customer is at a location (e.g., a home address) associated with the account of the customer stored in the account database 140. The connected device 110 may indicate that the customer is at any other location (e.g., at a bank, ATM, or other location associated with the financial institution) determined, via the locator 112, by GPS coordinates, cellular network triangulation data, etc. In some configurations, the location data may be determined by or related to the locator 112 (e.g., a beacon identifier). In such configurations, the financial institution computing system 120 may identify, via the location circuit 134, banks and/or ATMs in the vicinity of the connected device 110. In arrangements where the location data relates to other location data (e.g., GPS coordinates), the financial institution computing system 120 may cross-reference the location of the connected device 110 against the known locations of the banks and/or ATMs to determine whether the customer is within a predetermined range of a given bank and/or ATM to determine the position of the customer as the biometric data is received. ¶0035, … the biometric condition of the customer may be monitored, via the connected device 110, to determine changes in the health and/or the cognitive ability of customer during a period of time, at a location, or a combination thereof. Claim 1, receiving, via a connected device, biometric data associated with a biometric condition of a customer of a financial institution and during a first time period before receiving a transaction request; receiving, via the connected device, location data associated with a position of the customer determined based on a global positioning system (GPS) coordinate of the connected device at the time the biometric data is generated, wherein the position of the customer indicates that the customer is at a location associated with the account of the customer…)
receiving, at the point-of-sale device, a request for a transaction associated with the user device, wherein the request for the transaction is received at an end of the first duration of time; (¶0004, generate a health score of the customer in response to receiving a transaction request…)
based on receiving the request for the transaction, determining that the biometric data received over the first duration of time indicates a threshold change in an affective state of a user corresponding to the user device; (¶0004, …generate a health score of the customer in response to receiving a transaction request, determine a biometric state of the customer based on at least one of the health score exceeding a predetermined threshold of a base score or the position of the customer during a financial transaction,…¶0034, At 308, the connected device 110 may be configured to determine, via the connected device 110, the biometric state of the customer during the financial transaction based on the health score exceeding a predetermined threshold of the base score. Accordingly, the calculation engine 136 may transmit the health score generated at 306 to the biometric circuit 210 of the connected device 110. In turn, the biometric circuit 210 may compare, via the connected device 110, the health score to the base score at 308. In some arrangements, the calculation engine 136 may provide the health score to the biometric management circuit 130 of the financial institution computing system 120. In such arrangements, the biometric management circuit 130 may compare the health score to the base score. In further arrangements, the biometric management circuit 130 may transmit the health score to the connected device 110 for comparison to the base score. ¶0035, In some configurations, the biometric circuit 210 may be configured to determine a change in the biometric state of the customer. The change in the biometric state may be based on a time period, location, etc. Accordingly, the biometric data may be analyzed by the biometric circuit of connected device 110 and/or the financial institution computing system 120 programmatically utilizing machine learning to develop a particular pattern recognition algorithm that utilizes statistical inferences to determine a change in the biometric state of the customer based on the time period, location, etc… Accordingly, the biometric condition of the customer may be monitored, via the connected device 110, to determine changes in the health and/or the cognitive ability of customer during a period of time, at a location, or a combination thereof. For example, the heart rate of the customer during a current visit to the bank or ATM or while executing a financial transaction may have increased causing a health score which exceeds the previous learned health scores of the customer. The increase in health score as compared to the base score may indicate a biometric state of duress or coercion. The associated biometric data of the customer may be stored in or otherwise retrieved from the account database 140 or memory associated with the financial institution computing system 120 or the connected device 110. Claim 1, generating, via the connected device, a health score of the customer based on the additional biometric data and the typing input in response to receiving the transaction request for the account of the customer at the financial institution from the third party system)
determining a probability that a user initiated the transaction under duress based at least in part on the threshold change in the affective state of the user; and (¶0034, If the health score is less than or otherwise meets a predetermined threshold of the base score during the financial transaction (e.g., when the customer initiates a funds withdrawal, funds transfer, beneficiary change, etc. from their account at the financial institution), the biometric circuit 210 may determine that the biometric state of the customer is not indicative of duress or coercion. If the health score exceeds the predetermined threshold of the base score during the financial transaction (e.g., when the customer begins to withdraw funds from their account at the financial institution), the biometric circuit 210 may determine that the biometric state of the customer is indicative of duress or coercion. In some configurations, the comparison of the health score to the base score may be based on a time period, location, etc. For example, the customer may have a higher heart rate yielding generally the same or similar health score every time the customer goes to the bank such that the comparison of the health score to the base score does not indicate a biometric state of duress or coercion. ¶0036, In some arrangements, the biometric circuit 210 may be configured to determine whether an event risk (e.g., a fraud risk, fraud risk level, etc.) exceeds an event threshold (e.g., a threshold risk level indicative of fraud or coercion) based on the health score (e.g., a score indicative of physical health and/or cognitive ability) exceeding the predetermined threshold of the base score (e.g., a baseline health and/or cognitive ability score). For example, if the health score exceeds the predetermined threshold of the base score which indicates that the biometric state of the customer is indicative of duress or coercion, the biometric circuit 210 may determine that the risk of fraud or coercion exceeds the event threshold.)
based at least in part on determining that the probability is greater than or equal to a threshold probability level, initiating a supplemental action for the transaction. (¶0037, At 310, an account alert is provided, via the connected device, to an associated recipient during the financial transaction in response to the health score exceeding the predetermined threshold of the base score. Alternatively or additionally, an account alert may be provided to an associated recipient during the financial transaction when the event risk exceeds the event threshold. In some examples, an account alert may be provided to an associated recipient and/or the financial institution when the event risk exceeds the event threshold even if the customer is not engaging in a financial transaction. The associated recipient may include at least one of a family member, guardian, healthcare provider, emergency response personnel, law enforcement personnel, or designated recipient. The associated recipient (e.g., a family member or guardian) may receive the account alert via a user device 106 such that the associated recipient may be informed of the event risk. ¶0038, In further embodiments, an account of the customer may be moved to a held state (e.g., a state in which no activity, such as transactions, may be executed or otherwise completed with respect to the account) in response to the event risk exceeding the event threshold. For example, when an event risk (e.g., a risk of coercion) is detected, the biometric circuit 210 and/or the biometric management circuit 130 may execute an anti-fraud action, such as putting a hold on the account such that the customer may not complete a withdrawal, funds transfer, beneficiary change, etc. In some example configurations, the biometric circuit 210 and/or the biometric management circuit 130 may execute an anti-fraud action, such as putting a partial hold on the account such that the customer may complete a partial withdrawal or funds transfer (e.g., a withdrawal or funds transfer for a percentage amount (e.g., 10%, 25%, 50%, etc.)) of the total requested funds. Yet in other configurations, the biometric circuit 210 and/or the biometric management circuit 130 may execute an anti-fraud action, such as putting a partial hold on the account and requiring a designated amount of time (e.g., 24 hours) to pass before the balance of the requested funds may be withdrawn or transferred. In further configurations, the biometric circuit 210 and/or the biometric management circuit 130 may set metadata flags to allow a first financial transaction (e.g., a fraudulent and/or coerced transaction) to complete, but not a subsequent financial transaction (e.g., a subsequent fraudulent and/or coerced transaction) to complete.)
Clausen further discloses:
input/output circuitry (¶0019, The connected device 110 may include a display 204 and a user input/output 206. In some arrangements, the display 204 and the user input/output 206 are combined (e.g., as a touchscreen display device). In other arrangements, the display 204 and the user input/output 206 are discrete devices. The user input/output 206 includes any of biometric sensors (e.g., a sensor configured to receive biometric data), speakers, keyboards, notification LEDs, microphones, buttons, switches, cameras, or a combination thereof.)
control circuitry (¶0022, The functionality of the connected device 110 described herein is controlled at least in part by the biometric circuit 210 and the transaction circuit 212. Both the biometric circuit 210 and the transaction circuit 212 are formed at least in part by the financial institution application associated with the financial institution. The biometric circuit 210 is structured to monitor a biometric state of a customer during a financial transaction.)
Clausen does not disclose, however Taveau teaches:
a point-of-sale device (claim 1, detecting, based on signals received by the near-field communication chip of the mobile device, that a point-of-sale (POS) device at a merchant location is within a predetermined distance from the mobile device. Col 7 lines 45-51, As part of the determination, a location of the user is determined. This may be through a location service or function associated with the user's mobile device or through the user entering a specific location. The location may be obtained at step 132 or at any other time.)
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 teaching of Clausen by incorporating Taveau’s teaching.
One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to substitute the ATM machine from Clausen for the POS device in Taveau as they are both electronic transaction terminals and both perform similar functions such authentication, transaction processing and communication with financial networks.
Further, the claimed limitation “wherein the request for the transaction is received at an end of the first duration of time;” only describe characteristics of the request for the transaction which is non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claims 3, 5-6, 9, 13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausen and Taveau, as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bermudez (US 2024/0211986 A1).
Regarding claim 3 and 13, the combination of Clausen and Taveau do not disclose, however Bermudez teaches:
the supplemental action for the transaction comprises requesting authorization from a secondary device associated with the user, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving the authorization from the secondary device; and (Bermudez ¶0017, For example, the system may detect that a user is in a negative emotional state and nervous about the current transaction. Thus, the system may send a confirmation text message to a mobile device of a user for the user to respond with to continue with the transaction. Bermudez ¶0066, For example, the emotional state system 306 may be configured to cause a confirmation operation if the emotional state analysis determines that the user is in a negative emotional state. In another example, the emotional state system 306 may be configured to cause an incentive operation of the emotional state analysis determines that the user is a negative emotional state. See Claim 1.)
in response to receiving the authorization from the secondary device, approving the transaction. (Bermudez Claim1, transmit a signal to a computing device to perform the enablement operation to cause performance of the transaction, communication of the confirmation operation, or performance of the incentive operation, or a combination thereof.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clausen and Taveau with Bermudez’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to add an additional layer of security to the system and the transaction is only completed when the user confirms their intent.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “the supplemental action for the transaction comprises requesting authorization from a secondary device associated with the user” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it does not affect the recited steps.
Regarding claim 5 and 15, the combination of Clausen and Taveau do not disclose, however Bermudez teaches:
determining the probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress further comprises determining the probability based on a transaction history of the user. (Bermudez ¶0004, The processing circuitry may further apply a model to the biometric data and the transaction data to determine an emotional state of the user during the transaction, the emotional state of the user may include one of a positive emotional state or a negative emotional state, and the model may be trained on historical biometric data and historical transaction data associated with previous transactions and biometric characteristics of users.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clausen and Taveau with Bermudez’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to make enhance the security of the system for a more robust threat detection system.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, the combination of Clausen and Taveau do not disclose, however Bermudez teaches:
determining the probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress based on secondary biometric data captured by a secondary device associated with the user. (Bermudez ¶0056, In some embodiments, the computing device 302 may determine at least a portion of the biometric data and/or transaction data itself and/or via communicating with other devices. For example, the computing device 302 may be coupled with a biometric device, such as a smartwatch that may provide heart rate, blood pressure, and other information
to the computing device 302.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clausen and Taveau with Bermudez’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to enhance the accuracy of the probability model by using distributed biometric inputs.
Regarding claim 9 and 19, the combination of Clausen, Taveau and Bermudez further teaches:
receiving, from the secondary device, an indication of a threshold change in the secondary biometric data during a time period prior to the transaction; and (Bermudez ¶0054, In embodiments, the biometric data may be a sample or snippet of data from a time prior to the initiation of the transaction, e.g., the action detected at line 301. The transaction card 310 may collect the biometric data on a continuous and/or periodic basis, e.g., every half second, and store the collected biometric data in the memory. The biometric data may be updated in the memory and, in some instances, a memory buffer may be utilized. Thus, when the transaction is initiated the transaction card, 310 may communicate the biometric data to the computing device 302 that was stored in memory, which includes biometric data stored in memory for a set time period of time before the initiation. The transaction card 310 may continue to send biometric data recorded during the transaction until the transaction is complete and/or another action or event has occurred, e.g., the transaction is canceled.)
determining the probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress based on the threshold change in the secondary biometric data during the time period prior to the transaction. (Bermudez ¶0058, At line 309, the transaction processing system 304 communicates the biometric and the transaction data to the emotional state system 306. Further and at line 311, the emotional state system 306 may process the data to determine an emotional state of a user at the time of the transactions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clausen, Taveau and Bermudez with Bermudez’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to detect biometric changes that indicate signs of duress prior to the transaction which will enhance the system security and predictability.
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausen and Taveau, as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bermudez BMD2 (US 2021/0398131 A1).
Regarding claim 2 and 12, the combination of Clausen and Taveau do not disclose, however BMD2 teaches:
the supplemental action for the transaction comprises flagging the transaction for additional review. (BMD2 ¶0087, In some embodiments, method 500 may alternately include transmitting a flagged transfer of funds such that the financial service provider associated with the transfer of funds may track, investigate, or otherwise be apprised of the fact that the corresponding transfer of funds may have been coerced by the third party associated with the receiving account.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clausen and Taveau with BMD2’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to further enhance transaction security by implementing an additional way of identifying potentially coerced transactions.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “the supplemental action for the transaction comprises flagging the transaction for additional review” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it does not affect the recited steps.
Regarding claim 4 and 14, the combination of Clausen and Taveau do not disclose, however BMD2 teaches:
the supplemental action comprises capturing image data and audio data from one or more image sensors and audio sensors in proximity to the point-of-sale device after the biometric data was received. (BMD2 ¶0055, In some embodiments, program(s) 236 ( or some other device or system) may transmit instructions to a camera and/or a microphone (e.g., of wearable user device 102 or user computing device 104) to engage such that environmental data may be recorded. In some embodiments, program(s) 236 (or some other device or system) may be configured to determine from the recorded environmental data whether the user is in a potentially dangerous situation or is becoming victim to a coerced transfer of funds.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clausen and Taveau with BMD2’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to add additional contextual evidence to verify the authenticity of the transaction. This approach strengthens security by combining biometrics with real time environmental monitoring.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “the supplemental action comprises capturing image data and audio data from one or more image sensors and audio sensors in proximity to the point-of-sale device after the second biometric input was received” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it does not affect the recited steps.
Claims 7-8 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausen, Taveau and Bermudez, as applied to claim 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Bermudez BMD2 (US 2021/0398131 A1).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, the combination of Clausen, Taveau and Bermudez, do not disclose, however BMD2 teaches:
the secondary biometric data comprises raw data, (BMD2 ¶0090, In block 610, method 600 may include receiving (e.g., by wearable user device 102 or user computing device 104) first biometric sensor data, and in block 620, method 600 may include storing the first biometric sensor data in memory ( e.g., storage device 234, storage device 334, storage device 434).
the method further comprising: receiving, by a point-of-sale system comprising the point-of-sale device, the raw data from the secondary device; and (BMD2 ¶0090, In block 640, method 600 may include receiving situational data, and in some embodiments, the situational data may include biological information associated with the user.)
determining, by the point-of-sale system, the probability that the user is initiating the transaction under duress based on the raw data. (BMD2 ¶0091, In block 650, method 600 may include determining that the received situational data is above a predetermined level of similarity to the first biometric sensor data. That is, method 600 may include determining that the received situational data is representative of the user being in a stressed state or corresponds to a stress value that is above a predetermined threshold or corresponds to a likelihood of coercion that is above a predetermined threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clausen, Taveau and Bermudez with BMD2’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to provide additional more data points in order to enhance security and accuracy of duress detection.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “the secondary biometric data comprises raw data” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it does not affect the recited steps.
Regarding claim 8 and 18, the combination of Clausen, Taveau and Bermudez do not disclose, however BMD2 teaches:
receiving, by a point-of-sale system comprising the point-of-sale device from the secondary device, a first probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress, wherein the first probability is determined at the secondary device based on the secondary biometric data captured by the secondary device; and (BMD2¶0085, In block 520, method 500 may include receiving an indication of a trigger event, as discussed above. The trigger event may be associated with a potential transfer of funds (e.g., the opening of a mobile banking application on user computing device 104). In block 525, method 500 may include receiving situational data. In some embodiments, the situational data may include biological information ( e.g., biometric information) associated with the user.)
selecting as the probability that the user initiated the transaction under duress, the first probability received from the secondary device. (BMD2 ¶0086,In block 530, method 500 may include determining, based at least in part on a comparison of the situational data to the first range of biometric data and/or the second range of biometric data, a likelihood of coercion associated with the potential transfer of funds. In certain embodiments, the likelihood of coercion may correspond to a stress value, a stress value, or similar data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clausen, Taveau and Bermudez with BMD2’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the user’s state based on calculated probability from the biometric data collected from the secondary device.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausen and Taveau, as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Clark (US 2015/0269555 A1).
Regarding claim 10 and 20, the combination of Clausen and Taveau do not disclose does not disclose, however Clark teaches:
after receiving the biometric data corresponding to the transaction, detecting a gesture input; and selecting a payment method for the transaction based on the gesture input. (Clark ¶0003, The method includes receiving a first haptic gesture associated with a financial transaction, comparing the first haptic gesture to at least one command gesture retrieved from a data repository to identify a plurality of payment method options, providing the plurality of payment method options retrieved from the data repository based upon the first haptic gesture, receiving a second haptic gesture comprising a payment method selection selected from the plurality of payment method options, and providing a plurality of cardholder account information for the financial transaction, the plurality of cardholder account information provided based at least in part on the payment method selection.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clausen and Taveau with Clark’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to improve usability of the system as well as adding an additional layer of security, ensuing that the user is consciously selecting a payment method rather than being coerce.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the previous non-final action dated 11/28/2025 are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant presents several assertions regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as set forth in the applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11.
First, the applicant asserts that “the claims are directed to statutory subject matter because they "recite a specific improvement to a particular computer-implemented authentication technique”. The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. the claims do not recite a specific improvement to a computer technology and instead the claims use generic computer devices to collect biometric data, analyze it and perform actions based on the analysis.
Second, the applicant asserts that the “additional elements of Applicant's claim thus represent significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept) because they are a practical implementation of the abstract idea of verifying transaction requests that performs transaction requests based on two thresholds in a nonconventional and non-generic way, even if the steps were to use well-known components.” and compares the claims on the instant case to the ones in example 35. The applicant states that the claims in the instant application are analogous to the ones in example 35 and provide non-conventional/non-generic improvement to ensure that a user is requesting a transaction without duress using a two-stage verification that is more than the conventional verification process employed by a single stage verification process. The examiner considered this statement and disagrees. USPTO example 35 concerns claims directed to a specific non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of computer network components to improve protection against unauthorized access. On the other hand, the present claims merely collects biometric information, analyzes the biometric information to determine if the user is under duress and initiates supplemental actions based on the analysis. The claim merely use the conventional computer elements of POS and user device to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the applicants argument that the claims amount to “significantly more” is not persuasive.
As such the claims based on the newly amended claims, remain within an abstract idea under step 2A prong one and do not amount to significantly more under step 2B prong two as they fail to recite an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself performed on a generic computing environment. Therefore the rejection is maintained based on the newly amended claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the newly added claimed expression in the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 2021/0334813 A1 to Clausen et al. discloses: A banking system includes a connected device comprising a biometric sensor and a computer system communicatively coupled to the connected device. The connected device is configured to receive, via the biometric sensor, biometric data associated with a biometric condition of a customer of a financial institution. The computer system is configured to receive the biometric data, receive location data associated with a position of the customer, generate a health score of the customer in response to receiving a transaction request, determine a biometric state of the customer based on at least one of the health score exceeding a predetermined threshold of a base score or the position of the customer during a financial transaction, and transmit an account alert to a third party prior to authorizing the transaction request based on the biometric state of the customer.
US 10,083,304 B2 to Chhabra et al. discloses : Technologies for information security include a computing device with one or more sensors. The computing device may authenticate a user and, after successful authentication, analyze sensor data to determine whether it is likely that the user authenticated under duress. If so, the computing device performs a security operation such as generating an alert or presenting false but plausible data to the user. Additionally or alternatively, the computing device, within a trusted execution environment, may monitor sensor data and apply a machine-learning classifier to the sensor data to identify an elevated risk of malicious attack. For example, the classifier may identify potential user identification fraud. The computing device may trigger a security response if elevated risk of attack is detected. For example, the trusted execution environment may trigger increased authentication requirements or increased anti-theft monitoring for the computing device. Other embodiments are described and claimed.
US 2018/0174146 A1 to Bansal et al. discloses: One or more sensors are used to evaluate whether a user of a financial instrument is under duress by evaluating information collected about the user at the time of a transaction. If one or more stress indicators are above a predetermined threshold level, full access to the financial instrument may be disabled. Transaction risk rules may be increased, transaction amounts may be limited, or transactions may be blocked entirely if full access is disabled.
US 2019/0205889 A1 to Cantrell et al. discloses: An example method for performing concepts disclosed can include: obtaining a first authentication factor including first biometric data of a user; hashing the first authentication factor to create a first hash; registering the user with a digital credit system using the created first hash; obtaining a second authentication factor including second biometric data of the user; hashing the second authentication factor to create a second hash; comparing the first hash and the second hash; and proceeding the transaction based on the comparison.
US 2007/0198850 A1 to Martin et al. discloses: The system has an identification device provided for detecting an identifier associated with a user. Another identification device is provided for obtaining a biometric data of the user. A database is provided for storing the identifier, a biometric template and an indicator. A processor detects an identity of the user that is not under duress, where the identity is determined by matching the detected identifier with a stored identifier and matching the biometric data with the template. The duress is determined by matching the biometric data with the duress indicator.
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 on (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