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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non final rejection prepared in response to applicant’s amendment for U.S. Patent Application 18/232,994 filed on 10/27/2025.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 21-50 are cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected for reciting “receiving, at the second time, a third biometric input at the point-of-sale device, wherein the third biometric input is a second biometric input type; based at least in part on the determining that the second hash of the second biometric input does not match the stored first hash of the first biometric input, analyzing the third biometric input;” which introduces new matter not originally disclosed in the specification. The originally filed specifications and drawings do not contain any description, suggestion or mention of third biometric input being received at the same time as the second biometric input as implied by the limitation above. Additionally, there is not any description, suggestion or mention of an analysis performed on the third biometric input upon a determination that the stored hash and the second biometric input do not match. According to the specification on ¶0054 & ¶0057, a first biometric input is received and match against a stored hash and a second biometric input which is use to analyze the probability that the user maybe under duress is received after the matching and not simultaneously. Further, the specifications state on ¶0082 that “If the hand scan is not verified, then the process proceeds to step 808 wherein the back-end returns an error message”. Therefore, because the original specifications fail to reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skills in the art that the applicant had possession of the concept the above limitations constitute new matter under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The applicant is advised to delete or amend the unsupported limitation.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected as they depend from either claims 1 or 11. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 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:
receiving, at a first time via a user interface at a point-of-sale device, a first biometric input, wherein the first biometric input is a first biometric input type;
storing a first hash of the first biometric input at a server that is communicatively coupled to the point-of-sale device;
receiving, at a second time via the user interface at the point-of-sale device, a second biometric input corresponding to a request for a transaction, wherein the second biometric input is the first biometric input type;
comparing, at the server, a second hash of the second biometric input to the stored first hash of the first biometric input;
determining, based at least in part on the comparing the second hash to the stored first hash, that the second hash of the second biometric input does not match the stored first hash of the first biometric input;
receiving, at the second time, a third biometric input at the point-of-sale device, wherein the third biometric input is a second biometric input type;
based at least in part on the determining that the second hash of the second biometric input does not match the stored first hash of the first biometric input, analyzing the third biometric input;
determining a probability that a user initiated the transaction under duress based on the analysis of the third biometric input; 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 collecting a first set of biometric data associated with the user; hashing the data and storing it as a reference; subsequently collecting a second, hashing it and comparing it with the stored hash of the first set of data; collecting a third set of biometric data if the comparison does not match, comparing the third set with the stored hash of the first set of biometric data and using the comparison of the third set of biometric data to calculate a probability score to be used to determine if the user is under duress; if it is determine that the user is under duress, initiating a supplemental action. 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. The claim recitation of hashing and using the hashed result to compare with stored hash further recites abstract idea, i.e., “Mathematical concepts” (i.e. mathematical calculations”) and “Mental processes” (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas.
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 server, a user interface 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 second biometric input 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 input 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 Waldron (US 2023/0011633 A1) in view of Gilchrist (US 6167517), and in further view of Caterino (US 10,482,698 B2).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Waldron discloses:
receiving, at a first time via a user interface at a point-of-sale device, a first biometric input, wherein the first biometric input is a first biometric input type; (Waldron ¶0030, Referring to FIG. 1, a system for scalable biometric authentication is disclosed according to an embodiment. System 100 may include biometric receiving device 110, which may receive a biometric by contact or without contact. Biometric receiving device 110 may communicate with terminal, which may be a point of transaction device, a point-of-sale device, an access device, etc. For example, terminal 115 may be a point-of-sale device for a merchant. Waldron ¶0062, In step 405, a customer may present a biometric to a biometric reading device. In step 410, the biometric reading device may receive the biometric by scanning ( e.g., IR scanning), imaging, or any other suitable technology. See Fig 4 - 410)
storing a first hash of the first biometric input at a server that is communicatively coupled to the point-of-sale device; (Waldron ¶0031, Terminal 115 may communicate with backend 120, which may be any suitable computing device including physical servers, cloud-based servers, combinations, etc… Terminal 115 may execute biometric authentication computer program 125 that may receive a biometric from biometric receiving device 110 and determine whether it matches any stored biometrics in biometric database 130. See fig 1 – 115, 120 & 130. Waldron ¶0063, In step 415, the received biometric may be processed and stored. In one embodiment, the biometric may be hashed, and only the hash of the biometric may be stored. In one embodiment, the hash may be performed by the biometric reading device. See Fig 4 – 415.)
receiving, at a second time via the user interface at the point-of-sale device, a second biometric input corresponding to a request for a transaction, wherein the second biometric input is the first biometric input type; (Waldron ¶0045, In step 205, a biometric may be received with a transaction at a merchant point of transaction device. In one embodiment, the transaction may a purchase transaction, and the point of transaction may be a point-of-sale device. The biometric may be any suitable biometric, including palm biometrics (e.g., palm veins), fingerprints, facial biometrics, voice biometrics, eye biometrics, etc.)
comparing, at the server, a second hash of the second biometric input to the stored first hash of the first biometric input; (Waldron ¶0014, According to another embodiment, a method for biometric registration may include: (1) receiving, by a biometric authentication computer program executed by a computer processor and from a biometric reading device, a biometric from a user; (2) hashing, by the biometric authentication computer program and using a hash function, the biometric; (3) comparing, by the biometric authentication computer program, the hashed biometric to a plurality of stored biometric hashes for registered biometrics in a biometric hash database, wherein the plurality of stored biometric hashes are generated using the hash function; (4) determining, by the biometric authentication computer program, that the hashed biometric does not match any of the stored biometric hashes; and (5) storing, by the biometric authentication computer program, the biometric in a biometric database, Waldron ¶0019, According to another embodiment, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, may include instructions stored thereon, which when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising: receiving from a biometric reading device, a biometric from a user, hashing, using a hash function, the biometric, comparing the hashed biometric to a plurality of stored biometric hashes for registered biometrics in a biometric hash database, wherein the plurality of stored biometric hashes are generated using the hash function, determining that the hashed biometric does not match any of the stored biometric hashes, and storing the biometric in a biometric database, Waldron ¶0049, In step 215, the received biometric may be compared
to stored biometrics for the subset of likely customers. Waldron ¶0063, In step 415, the received biometric may be processed and stored. In one embodiment, the biometric may be hashed, and only the hash of the biometric may be stored. In one embodiment, the hash may be performed by the biometric reading device. Waldron ¶0064, In one embodiment, during matching (e.g., step 420), a hash of the received biometric may be compared to the stored hashes. In one embodiment, the hash function may be selected to allow for minor differences between the received biometric and the registered biometric so that an exact match is not required.)
Waldron does not disclose, however Gilchrist teaches:
determining, based at least in part on the comparing the second hash to the stored first hash, that the second hash of the second biometric input does not match the stored first hash of the first biometric input; (Gilchrist col 5 lines 31-36, In state 322, host 108 determines if the message digest indicates a successful comparison. Host 108 does this by computing a speculative message digest using the same template, the encryption key and a comparison result indicating a successful match between the biometric sample and the template. Gilchrist col 6 lines 22-27, In state 316, client 102 computes a message digest using the template, the result of the above comparison and an encryption key. This message digest can be computed using any non-invertable checksum or signature algorithm. These include the MD5 checksum algorithm, the secure hash algorithm (SHA) and the digital signing algorithm (DSA). Gilchrist col 6 lines 43-46, If the speculative message digest does not match the message digest received from client 102, the system proceeds to state 326. In state 326, host 108 determines if the message digest indicates an unsuccessful comparison.)
receiving, at the second time, a third biometric input at the point-of-sale device, wherein the third biometric input is a second biometric input type; (Gilchrist col 6 lines 55-58, In state 328, the host 108 asks client 102 to retry the comparison with a new biometric sample. The system then returns to state 312, to repeat the process with a new biometric sample. Gilchrist col 6 lines 8-9, In state 312, client 102 gathers a biometric sample from user 103. This is accomplished using scanner 200 from FIG. 2.)
based at least in part on the determining that the second hash of the second biometric input does not match the stored first hash of the first biometric input, analyzing the third biometric input, (Gilchrist col 6 lines 55-58, In state 328, the host 108 asks client 102 to retry the comparison with a new biometric sample. The system then returns to state 312, to repeat the process with a new biometric sample. Gilchrist col 6 lines 11-16, In state 314, client 102 compares this biometric sample to the template. In one embodiment, the comparison is performed using a comparison threshold, which indicates how closely the biometric sample taken from the user must match the template in order to allow the user to access the host.)
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 Waldron with Gilchrist’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements by allowing the user to provide a third biometric input when the second biometric input does not match the stored biometric data prior to concluding that the user is under duress in order to address any false rejects or sensor errors.
Waldron and Gilchrist do not disclose, however Caterino teaches:
determining a probability that a user initiated the transaction under duress based on the analysis of the third biometric input; and (Caterino col 4 lines 21-30, In one embodiment, the information may be compared to baseline measurements (e.g., for a particular user, type of user, etc.), threshold values, and/or duress criterion. In any event, the analysis may include determining whether the measured information received from the sensors corresponds to at least one duress condition stored in a memory. The duress condition may be based on thresholds, rules, individual profiles, generic profiles (e.g., developed to characterize an individual and/or the duress condition), recorded responses to predetermined duress stimuli, combinations thereof, etc.)
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. (Caterino col 4 lines 31-50, In the event that the information received from the one or more sensors matches a duress condition, the wearable and/or the mobile communication device associated with a user may send a duress signal to at least one device associated with an access control system. In some embodiments, the duress signal may be sent to one or more devices (e.g., wearable devices, mobile communication devices, reading devices, duress alert devices, etc., that are within a communication range of or geographical proximity to the wearable and/or the mobile communication device associated with a user. Upon receiving a duress signal, the receiving device may provide and/or present an alert via one or more output devices (e.g., lights, displays, speakers, tactile feedback mechanisms, vibrating device, etc.). The alert may be configured to indicate a type of duress condition, a location of the duress condition, provide a warning and/or other information about the duress condition to a user.)
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 Waldron and Gilchrist with Caterino’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to improve the efficiency of fraud responses by reducing false alerts and also enhancing the security of the system.
Claims 3, 5-6, 9, 13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino, 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist, Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist, Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino, 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 second biometric input 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist, Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist, Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist, Caterino 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 Waldron, Gilchrist, Caterino 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 Waldron, Caterino, Gilchrist 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino, 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino do not disclose does not disclose, however Clark teaches:
after receiving the second biometric input 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 Waldron, Gilchrist and Caterino 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. § 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 9-12.
First, the applicant asserts that “claims 1 and 11 are directed to statutory subject matter because they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because they are integrated into practical application”, the examiner finds it not persuasive. The claim invention pertains to a method to enable payment transactions or user access validation based on user state which is an implementation of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the additional elements of a server, a user interface and a point-of-sale device, as recited in the claim, are merely additional elements representing conventional computer technologies employed to apply the underlying abstract idea. Therefore, the recited claim, does not include any additional features that rise to the level of an inventive concept under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework.
Further the applicant states that “the office action improperly analyzes each element only on its own merit, without considering them in combination” to which the examiner disagrees. The office action did not analyze the additional elements in isolation. The analysis of the claims consists of both the individual elements and the combination of the elements consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.04(d). Therefore, the applicant’s assertion is unsupported.
Furthermore, the applicant relies on USPTO example 34 and compares the claims on the instant case to the ones in example 34. The applicant states that the claims in the instant application are analogous to the ones in example 34 and provide non-conventional/non-generic improvement in transaction security at POS device. The examiner considered this statement and disagrees. USPTO example 34 concern claims directed to a specific non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of computer network components such as placing filtering software at a remote ISP server. On the other hand, the claims on the instant application recite a conventional configuration of receiving biometric input at a POS, storing and comparing them at a server, determining a probability and initiating an action which reflect routine client server computing and not an unconventional combination that improves upon the computer technology. Additionally, the applicant contends that the claim provides increased security for POS transactions. However, the claims do not improve the underlining technology of the POS device, server or hashing algorithm. They merely use the conventional computer elements 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
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