DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 is cancelled. Claims 2-22 are new. Claims 2-22 are pending in the application.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed 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 2-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 2: Claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations “wherein the authentication request includes a set of user application and device characteristics, and wherein the authentication request is associated with a user account” and “generating an initial identifier corresponding to the initial identifier type, wherein the initial identifier is uniquely associated with a primary identifier corresponding to the user account” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, such as evaluating information included within an authentication request and generating identifier information. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “A computer-implemented” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than merely utilizing a computer as a tool to apply the exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements “receiving an authentication request” and “providing the initial identifier, wherein the initial identifier is provided without exposing the primary identifier, and wherein when the initial identifier is provided in an application programming interface (API) call, the initial identifier is used to obtain the primary identifier and to perform an API action without exposing the primary identifier in an API action result” are insignificant extra-solution activities in the form of mere data gathering operations. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The additional elements “dynamically training in real-time a machine learning algorithm to assign initial identifier types for different initial identifiers that are generated for different user accounts, wherein the machine learning algorithm is dynamically trained using a dataset of sample user application and device characteristics”, “processing the set of user application and device characteristics through the machine learning algorithm to identify an initial identifier type”, and “continuously updating the machine learning algorithm as new authentication requests associated with other user accounts are received” are recited at a high-level of generality that lacks details regarding how the machine learning algorithm is trained, how the user application and device characteristics are utilized for the training, and/or how the machine learning algorithm is updated. As such, these elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. .
Step 2B: 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 of “A computer-implemented”, “dynamically training in real-time a machine learning algorithm to assign initial identifier types for different initial identifiers that are generated for different user accounts, wherein the machine learning algorithm is dynamically trained using a dataset of sample user application and device characteristics”, “processing the set of user application and device characteristics through the machine learning algorithm to identify an initial identifier type”, and “continuously updating the machine learning algorithm as new authentication requests associated with other user accounts are received” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
Furthermore, regarding the limitations “receiving an authentication request” and “providing the initial identifier, wherein the initial identifier is provided without exposing the primary identifier, and wherein when the initial identifier is provided in an application programming interface (API) call, the initial identifier is used to obtain the primary identifier and to perform an API action without exposing the primary identifier in an API action result”, the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The recitation of generic computer instructions and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claims 3-5 and 7-8: Claims 3-4 and 8 are directed to further instructions that are presented at a high-level of generality, and claims 5 and 7 recite elements that can be performed by mental evaluations and judgements. As such, claims 3-5 and 7-8 are also directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
With respect to claims 9-12 and 14-15: Claims 9-12 and 14-15 are directed to a system comprising one or more processors and memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to implement active steps corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 2-5 and 7-8, respectively. As such, in view of the above reasons with respect to claims 2-5 and 7-8, claims 9-12 and 14-15 are also directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
With respect to claims 16-19 and 21-22: Claims 16-19 and 21-22 are directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to implement active steps corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 2-5 and 7-8, respectively. As such, in view of the above reasons with respect to claims 2-5 and 7-8, claims 16-19 and 21-22 are also directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not explicitly disclose dynamically training in real-time a machine learning algorithm to assign initial identifier types for different initial identifiers that are generated for different user accounts, processing a set of user application and device characteristics through the machine learning algorithm to identify an initial identifier type, generating an initial identifier (e.g. UUID) corresponding to an initial identifier type, wherein the initial identifier is uniquely associated with a primary identifier corresponding to a user account and/or providing the initial identifier without exposing the primary identifier as recited in the claims.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dappuri (US 2024/0420133 A1) discloses receiving a wire transfer request that includes user and device characteristics and applying a training a wire transfer validation machine learning model to the transfer request in order to generate a meta score comprising training identifiers (see paragraphs 99-103).
Khare et al. (US 11,605,021 B1) discloses generating training data for a machine learning model based on inference data identified with a universally unique identifier (UUID) (see column 8, lines 3-61).
Kolman et al. (US 8,875,267 B1) discloses an active fraud detection process that receives an authentication request comprising user and device characteristics data, comparing the data included in the request with historical data for the user, and generating an adaptive authentication result based on the comparison (see column 5, lines 3-25).
Rose (US 2021/0174347 A1) discloses authenticating a user/customer that visits a terminal by collecting user and device characteristics and utilizing a machine learning model to identify the visitor (see paragraphs 124-125, 494-525).
Mahoney et al. (US 11,934,892 B2) corresponding to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/330,899.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights