CTNF 18/413,638 CTNF 80281 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination Transmittal received on 2/26/2026. Claims 2, 9, 16 are cancelled. Claims1, 3, 8, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, and 15 are amended. Consequently, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are pending examination. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/26/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea ) without significantly more . Claims 1 and 15 are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim 8 is drawn to a system. As such, claims 1, 8, and 15 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea ) without significantly more . Step 2A, Prong One. Claim 1 is directed to verifying authorization for an account modification using confirmation and a one-time password (OTP). This falls within the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human activity, specifically security and access control and authorization of transactions. The claim describes a process of: receiving a request; confirming authorization, verifying identity and allowing or blocking an action. These activities that involve managing access and authorization, which are considered abstract. Step 2A, Prong Two The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Amended claim 1 recites: an authentication portal; an identity provider; an SMS delivery service and a mobile device. These are well known and conventional components. The claim uses these components to send messages, receive confirmations, generate and verify one time password (OTPs). The claim does not describe any to the following: how these components are improved, any change to network operation or any new communication protocol. The specification describes standard SMS and OTP-based authentication used to prevent unauthorized access. The clam only applies the abstract idea in a wireless network environment using known tools. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B. The claims does not include an inventive concept the steps of : sending a confirmation message, receiving a response, generating an OTP, verifying OTP and allowing or blocking an action are well understood , routine and conventional. Requiring confirmation before generating the OTP is only reordering of known authentication steps and does not add significantly ore then the abstract idea. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below. Argument . The claims cannot be performed mentally and not directed to a method of organizing human activity. Response. The rejection does not rely on the claims being performed mentally. Rather, the claims are directed to a process for verifying authorization of an account modification using confirmation and one time password (OTP) steps. This constitutes an abstract idea of authentication or verification and access control, which is found abstract even when implemented on a computer. Furthermore, the specification confirms that the focus of the invention is on preventing unauthorized account modifications (e.g. phishing) through additional steps. This reflects a security objective, not a technical improvement to computer or network functionality. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Argument. Applicant argument (McRO). The claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they recite a specific technical authentication mechanism performed by a wireless network component. Response. Applicant’s reliance on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. is not persuasive. Because is McRO the claims recited a specific rule that improved a technological process (animation generation) and a particular implementation that changed how the computer operated. However, the current claims do not recite any specific algorithm, rule set, or technical mechanism for authentication. The claims do not improve the functioning of any of the following: SMS delivery, OTP generation or network communication. Instead, the claims recite a sequence of steps such as detecting a request; sending confirmation; receiving confirmation, generating OTP, which implement a verification workflow, without specifying how these steps are technically performed. Also, the specification describes the steps of he claims are described as functional steps performed by conventional components (authentication portal, identity provider, SMS delivery service) without any modification to the operation. The claims merely apply the abstract idea using generic network components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Argument. The claims are rooted in computer technology and solve a technical problem. Response . Despite the claims ae implemented in a wireless network environment, the problem of addressing phishing prevention or unauthorized account access is a security/business objective goal, and not a technical problem in the functioning of the computer or network itself. The specification clearly describes that the goal as phishing prevention attacks and unauthorized modifications, rather than improving performance or operation. The claims do not improve network throughput, latency, communication protocols, or technical operation of SMS or authentication systems. Argument . reliance on BASCOM. Response. In BASCOM the claims recited non-conventional technical arrangement that improved filtering at a specific location int eh network. In contrast, the current claims recite, sending SMS messages, generating OTPs, receiving confirmation and applying a timeout. Thes are well understood, routine and conventional authentication techniques, as reflected in the specification, which describes standard SMS-based verification and OTP processes. The claims simply combine known authentication steps in a conventional sequence to achieve a desired security outcome, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Argument regarding (USPTO Example 21), the claims include meaningful limitations similar to Example 21 and therefore are eligible. Response. The argument is snot persuasive. In example 21, the clams were eligible because they: recited a specific improvement to computer functionality and included technical limitations that altered the system operation. In contrast, the current claims do not recite any improvement to any of: the authentication portal operation; identity provider functionality or SMS delivery mechanism. Instead, use these components as conventional tools to perform the verification process. The additional elements do not improve a meaningful limitation beyond implementing the abstract idea in a particular technological environment. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T.. 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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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. /SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/413,638 Page 2 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/413,638 Page 3 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/413,638 Page 4 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/413,638 Page 5 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/413,638 Page 6 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/413,638 Page 7 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 18/413,638 Page 8 Art Unit: 2443
Prosecution Insights