DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to response filed on 12/10/25 and IDS filed on 10/2/25. No substantive claim amendments were provided in the response. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In page 7, section A, of the arguments, the Applicant argues that the claims are directed to the improvement in transaction security by requiring that the biometric profile be stored in the payment token and matching using sensor separate from the token.
The Examiner disagrees.
The claims disclose a comparison between biometric profile (i.e.: identifying information) stored by the payment token (e.g.: smartphone) with captured biometric data by a POS terminal. For example, a smartphone may transmit a facial image of the user to the POS terminal which compares the transmitted image to a captured image of the user’s face. There is no technological improvement disclosed by the claims because the claims recite mere user verification by comparing user profile information with captured user identifying information.
In pages 7-8, section B, the Applicant argues that the claims require various additional elements to perform the abstract idea that results in integration to practical application because of security improvements.
The Examiner disagrees.
The combination of additional elements recited in the claims merely perform the abstract idea of user authorization by comparing identifying profile information with captured identifying information. The additional elements are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In page 8, section C, the Applicant argues that the additional elements are “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The Examiner disagrees.
The combination of additional elements recited in the claims merely perform the abstract idea of user authorization by comparing identifying profile information with captured identifying information. The additional elements are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Therefore, the additional elements are not “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In page 9, section D, the Applicant argues that the claims provide technical improvement to transaction security.
The claims merely recite a business process of verifying a user with user device and on-site device that captures and compares identifying information about the user to identifying information provided by the user. There is no technological improvement disclosed by the claims because the claims recite mere user verification by comparing user profile information with captured user identifying information.
As such, the rejection is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted 10/2/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
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) The claims recite a process (claims 1-13), an apparatus (claims 14-19) and another apparatus (claim 20). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 14 (from claims 1, 14 and 20) is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity, as a method of authorizing a financial transaction by verifying identifying information associated with a party to the transaction, as are all a form of commercial or legal interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A transaction authorization system for authorizing a financial purchase, comprising:
a payment token, having a payment data set and a biometric profile stored thereon, said biometric profile associated with a first authorized user of the payment data set;
a biometric sensor, separate from the payment token, for collecting biometric data from an individual;
a point of sale terminal in electronic communication with the biometric sensor, wherein the point of sale terminal or the biometric sensor includes a data processor having a microprocessor and software for instructing the microprocessor to
(a) receive the biometric profile from the payment token and not from a remote server,
(b) collect a first biometric sample from the biometric sensor,
(c) compare the first biometric sample with the biometric profile,
(d) determine whether the first biometric sample matches the biometric profile,
(e) provide an indication as to whether the first biometric sample matches the biometric profile,
(f) if the indication is that there is no match between the biometric profile and the first biometric sample, reject the financial purchase using the payment data set,
if the indication is that the biometric profile matches the biometric sample, then processing the payment data set to complete the financial purchase.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A transaction authorization system […], comprising”, “a payment token, having […] stored”, “a […] sensor, separate from the payment token”, “a point of sale terminal in electronic communication with the […] sensor, wherein the point of sale terminal or the […] sensor includes a data processor having a microprocessor and software for instructing the microprocessor”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional elements are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
“[receive …] from the payment token and not from a remote server”. This is no more than “apply it” as “from the payment token and not from a remote server” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a financial transaction by verifying identifying information associated with a party to the transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 4 and 17, recited “wherein the biometric profile is collected by a sensor integrated into the transaction authorization system”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“by a sensor integrated into the transaction authorization system”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional element is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a financial transaction by verifying identifying information associated with a party to the transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 6, recited “wherein the biometric profile is collected by a sensor integrated into the payment token”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“by a sensor integrated into the payment token”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional element is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a financial transaction by verifying identifying information associated with a party to the transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 7, recited “wherein the biometric profile is collected by a peripheral sensor temporarily connected to the payment token”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“by a peripheral sensor temporarily connected to the payment token”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional element is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a financial transaction by verifying identifying information associated with a party to the transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 9 and 18, recited additional elements of:
“the payment token is a smartphone or a smart watch”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional element is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a financial transaction by verifying identifying information associated with a party to the transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 10, recited “wherein the payment data set includes at least one verification data confirmed with a government database”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“a government database”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional element is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a financial transaction by verifying identifying information associated with a party to the transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 13, recited “using at least one wireless sensor or antenna to determine the position of payment token and direct the biometric sensor to take the biometric sample from the user who presented the payment token”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“using at least one wireless sensor or antenna […] payment token and direct the […] sensor to […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional element is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a financial transaction by verifying identifying information associated with a party to the transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 19, recited additional elements of:
“the […] sensor comprises a LIDAR sensor”. This is no more than “apply it” as the additional element is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of authorizing a financial transaction by verifying identifying information associated with a party to the transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 2-3, 5, 8, 11-12, 15-17 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Reference made of record, not relied upon, pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, includes US 20190019195 A1 (Dunjic) disclosing smart chip card with fraud alert and biometric reset.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights