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 .
This communication is a First Action on the Merits (FAOM) responsive to Applicant’s election filed on September 24, 2025.
Claims 1-19 have been examined in this application. Claims 20-27 are withdrawn.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on March 25, 2024 has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response, filed on September 24, 2025, pages 1-2, to the Examiner’s requirement for restriction/election, filed on July 24, 2025, is acknowledged. Applicant elects Group I, claims 1-19. Because Applicant did not contest the restriction, the election is determined to be an election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19. Applicant did not comment on the remainder of the claims nor file a new set of claims; therefore, claims 20-27 are deemed withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: At least claim 2-5, and 9-10, include conditional limitation directed to a possible outcome that is contrary to what claim 1 recites. Claim 1 recites that the “dynamic data” are determined to be valid. As a result, the dependent claims of the claimed method, claim 1, cannot revert to a condition in which the dynamic data is not valid. In other words, how can an alternative condition occur, determining that “the dynamic data” is not valid following an independent claim that positively recites validation of the “dynamic data.” Claims 2-11 dependent from claim 1 and thus are objected to. To overcome the objection, the claims should be amended to remove the negative condition and focus only on further limiting the positive outcome following claim 1, wherein the “dynamic data” is determined to be valid. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13-18 are objected to because claim 13 is directed to a system and recites “a storage medium; and a processor configured to…” The claim fails to properly recite appropriate Beauregard language similar to that recited in claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Per claim 11, the claim recites “further comprising dynamically updating the second dynamic data.” Claim 1 recites that the dynamic data is received from an electronic device. Claim 1 is directed to limitations that are not carried out by the electronic device but are carried out by some other entity other than the electronic device. Specification, Paragraph 0043 recites: “In some embodiments, the electronic device dynamically updates the user's financial credentials, components (and subcomponents) of the user's financial credentials, and values associated with the user's financial credentials and components (and subcomponents) of the user's financial credentials, and provides the updated data for display on the interface of figure 3A or 3B.” Based on the above, claim 11 seems to be directed to elements outside the scope of claim 1. However, the claim at issue is objected more because the Specification does not clearly convey that the electronic device or what specific entity carries out the “dynamically updating the second dynamic data.” In fact, the claims and the Specification fail to explicitly recite at least which entity provides the second dynamic data. The claims only recite that the electronic device provides “the dynamic data.” Applicant may cancel the claim at issue and/or amend the claim in accordance with the Specification to potentially overcome the objection while also clarifying the record by indicating from where the second dynamic data comes from and to which entity it is provided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 3A and 3B are pixelated and blurred, making them difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Furthermore, for at least Figure 3B, the Specification does not recite “Total Score” in the Specification, which only discloses Figure 3B as including the “user’s health, the user’s credit, the user’s world,” and “the user’s environment.” A review of all drawings in view of the Specification is requested to ensure all details are disclosed in both the Specification and the drawings including proper reference numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claims 1, 13, and 19, the claims recite:
“A computer-implemented method to authenticate a user's financial credentials, comprising:
receiving a request to authenticate financial credentials of a user;
determining, whether the financial credentials have been preliminarily authenticated based on static data indicative of the financial credentials of the user…”
and
“… receive a request to authenticate financial credentials of a user;
determine, whether the financial credentials have been preliminarily authenticated based on a static data indicative of the financial credentials of the user;
in response to a determination that the financial credentials have been preliminarily authenticated…;” respectively.
Emphasis added.
Although claim 13 contains a typographical error, “a static data” instead of “static data” as recited in claims 1 and 19, the claims recite various user credentials rendering the claims indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis. Specifically, the limitation “the financial credentials,” lacks antecedent basis because it not clear whether it refers to the “financial credentials of a user” or some other financial credentials different than those of the financial credentials of the user.
Amending the claims to capture appropriate antecedent basis would overcome the rejection. Anay teaching of a single user financial credentials will be determined as reading on all claim limitations.
All dependent claims depending from the claims rejected as rejected under the same rational and for mere dependency on the rejected claims.
Per claims 2-5, 9-10, and 14-16, and 18, the claims recite “in response to a determination that the dynamic data are valid…” “…determining the dynamic data are valid…” It is not known whether the recited claim limitations “in response to a determination that the dynamic data are valid…” “…determining the dynamic data are valid…” in the claims at issue are directed to validation of the dynamic data that was already carried out in claims 1 and 13 or whether the validation of the dynamic data in the claims at issue are directed to a different validation other than the one already carried out in claims 1 and 13. All other claims are rejected for dependency on the rejected claims. For purposes of examination, any teaching of a single validation of dynamic data will be determined as reading on all claims at issue.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-19 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of validating user data to advance a transaction without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. the abstract idea can also be categorized under mental processes, including concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Using a pen and paper, a human can determine authentication of user data based on received user credentials that include said static and dynamic data. User data can be authenticated using a table or through a human’s memory, which can recall data to authenticate a user with. As a result of the authentication, the human can further receive dynamic data of the authenticated user, including data such as the user’s body mass index or any of the information deemed dynamic and to use this data to further authenticate the user and allow advancement of a transaction. The claims also clearly capture sales activities/behavior and commercial interactions because the claims are directed to the analysis and authentication of data linked to a user for the purpose of advancing a transaction.
Claim 1, in pertinent part, recites:
A… method to authenticate a user's financial credentials, comprising:
receiving a request to authenticate financial credentials of a user;
determining, whether the financial credentials have been preliminarily authenticated based on static data indicative of the financial credentials of the user;
in response to a determination that the financial credentials have been preliminarily authenticated, receiving dynamic data indicative of the financial credentials of the user, wherein the dynamic data are provided by an electronic device of the user;
determining whether the dynamic data are valid; and
in response to a determination that the dynamic data are valid, validating the financial credentials of the user.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: computer-implemented method, storage medium, processor, and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as receiving data, analyzing the data, and determining/outputting an outcome. Each of the additional elements/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11074325 to Duke et al. (Duke).
Per claims 1, 13, and 19, Duke teaches:
A computer-implemented method to authenticate a user's financial credentials, comprising [Abstract]:
receiving a request to authenticate financial credentials of a user (ATM receives request from user device for authentication for a transaction) [Abstract, Col. 12, Ln. 7-41];
determining, whether the financial credentials have been preliminarily authenticated based on static data indicative of the financial credentials of the user (determination of authentication or first authentication is made) [Col. 12, Ln. 41-67];
in response to a determination that the financial credentials have been preliminarily authenticated, receiving dynamic data indicative of the financial credentials of the user, wherein the dynamic data are provided by an electronic device of the user (further data is requested for a second authentication using dynamic data in real-time) [Col. 13, Ln.1-43];
determining whether the dynamic data are valid; and in response to a determination that the dynamic data are valid, validating the financial credentials of the user (determine to advance / settle a transaction based on the two-factor authentication/multiple level authentication) [Col. 13, Ln.1-43].
Regarding claim 19, Duke teaches in response to a determination that the dynamic data are valid, requesting a financial institution to authorize a financial transaction; and in response to a determination that the dynamic data are not valid, requesting the financial institution to decline the financial transaction (responsive to authentication of dynamic data obtained, the user is able to perform or settle a transaction in accordance with the level of authentication) [Col. 15, Ln. 1-31; and Figures 3 and 5 and related text].
Per claim 2, Duke teaches further comprising: in response to a determination that the dynamic data are valid, requesting a financial institution to authorize a financial transaction; and in response to a determination that the dynamic data are not valid, requesting the financial institution to decline the financial transaction [Col. 15, Ln. 1-31; and Figures 3 and 5 and related text].
Per claim 3 and 14, Duke teaches wherein determining whether the dynamic data are valid comprises: comparing the dynamic data provided by the electronic device with a second dynamic data; and determining the dynamic data are valid in response to determining that the dynamic data match the second dynamic data; and determining the dynamic data are not valid in response to determining that the dynamic data do not match the second dynamic data [Col. 15, Ln. 1-31].
Per claim 4 and 15, Duke teaches determining, from the dynamic data, a value that is associated with a financial score of the user; determining, from the second dynamic data, a second value that is associated with the financial score of the user; determining the dynamic data are valid in response to determining that the value matches the second value; and determining the dynamic data are not valid in response to determining that the value does not match the second value [Col. 13, Ln. 1-18; and Col. 15, Ln. 1-31].
Per claim 5 and 16, Duke teaches determining, from the dynamic data, a first set of numerical values that are associated with the financial score of the user, wherein each numerical value of the first set of numerical values represents a portion of the value; determining, from the dynamic data, a second set of numerical values that are associated with the financial score of the user, wherein each numerical value of the second set of numerical values represents a portion of the second value; determining the dynamic data are valid in response to determining that each value of the first set of values matches a corresponding value of the second set of values; and determining the dynamic data are not valid in response to determining that a value of the first set of values does not match a corresponding value of the second set of values [Col. 13, Ln. 1-18; and Col. 15, Ln. 1-31].
Per claim 6 and 17, Duke teaches determining, for each respective value of the first set of values, whether the respective value is within a threshold range of a corresponding value of the second set of values; determining that the respective value matches the corresponding value if the respective value is within the threshold range of the corresponding value; and determining that the respective value does not match the corresponding value if the respective value is not within the threshold range of the corresponding value [Col. 13, Ln. 1-18; and Col. 15, Ln. 1-31].
Per claim 7, Duke teaches determining that the respective value matches the corresponding value if the respective value is identical to the corresponding value; and determining that the respective value does not match the corresponding value if the respective value is not identical to the corresponding value [Col. 13, Ln. 1-18; and Col. 15, Ln. 1-31].
Per claim 8, Duke teaches determining that the value matches the corresponding value if the value is within a threshold range of the second value; and determining that the value does not match the corresponding value if the value is not within the threshold range of the second value [Col. 13, Ln. 1-18; and Col. 15, Ln. 1-31].
Per claim 9 and 18, Duke teaches wherein determining whether the dynamic data are valid comprises: comparing a third dynamic data provided by the electronic device at a first time period with a fourth dynamic data generated at the first time period, wherein the third dynamic data predates the dynamic data; and determining the dynamic data are valid in response to determining that the third dynamic data match the fourth dynamic data; and determining the dynamic data are not valid in response to determining that the third dynamic data do not match the fourth dynamic data [Col. 13, Ln. 1-18; and Col. 15, Ln. 1-31].
Examiner notes that the limitation amounts to mere duplication of parts; In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Per claim 10, Duke teaches wherein determining whether the dynamic data are valid comprises: comparing a fifth dynamic data provided by the electronic device at a second time period with a sixth dynamic data generated at the second time period, wherein the fifth dynamic data predates the dynamic data; and determining the dynamic data are valid in response to determining that the fifth dynamic data match the sixth dynamic data; and determining the dynamic data are not valid in response to determining that the fifth dynamic data do not match the sixth dynamic data [Col. 13, Ln. 1-18; and Col. 15, Ln. 1-31].
Examiner notes that the limitation amounts to mere duplication of parts; In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Per claim 11, Duke teaches further comprising dynamically updating the second dynamic data [Col. 5, Ln. 10-19; and Col. 13, Ln. 1-18; and Col. 15, Ln. 1-31].
Per claim 12, Duke teaches further comprising providing a result to the electronic device [Col. 13, Ln. 1-18; and Col. 15, Ln. 1-31 and Figures 3, and 5-6].
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-19 of co-pending Application No. 18/583,774 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Additional References
PGPUB 2020/0042685 to Tussy et al. (Tussy) teaches all of Applicant’s claimed scope. User authentication to advance a transaction using multiple levels of data and types of data including but not limited to facial recognition, account information, user information, credit score information, requesting additional information based on a match score/threshold, etc.
PGPUB 2016/0055487 to Votaw et al. (Votaw) teaches various elements of what Applicant deems as their invention. Votaw teaches providing user authentication based on historical user patterns. Embodiments receive from a user, a request to execute a user action associated with an application, wherein execution of the user action requires validation of authentication credentials; collect a set of data comprising information related to user patterns associated with the apparatus of the user; determine a user pattern score associated with the user; determine a level of authentication; determine which authentication types are associated with the level of authentication; request authentication credentials corresponding to the authentication types; receive authentication credentials from the user; validate the authentication credentials, thereby resulting in a successful validation of the authentication credentials; and in response to the successful validation, execute the user action.
U.S. Patent 11,625,407 to Jamshidi teaches analyzing website content and recommending changes in website content. A method can include analyzing, by a computer system, webpages of a website to determine a current value for a quality score of the website, the current value being less than a perfect value from among potential values for the quality score, determining a value for a corresponding industry benchmark score for other websites in a same industry as the website, and providing information to cause a client device to concurrently present: (i) a circle graphical element indicating the current value for the quality score, where a first portion of the circle graphical element is presented in a first manner and a second portion is presented in a second manner, a size of the first portion indicating the current value, and (ii) a graphical indication of the value for the corresponding industry benchmark score.
See all other relevant references cited. Applicant is highly encouraged to consider all references in order to help advance prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Neha W. Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699