DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to RCE, amendment and response filed on 2/2/26 and IDS filed on 10/2/25. Claim 21 was cancelled. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-20 and 22 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and response have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because of claim amendments that are substantive. Per example, claim 1 recites additional elements (e.g.: “sending … to the first wireless terminal, wherein the first wireless terminal …”) that necessitate reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 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 § 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 1-20 and 22 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.
With respect to claim 1, it is unclear what the limitation “the first wireless terminal deletes, at least in part, each element of the requested set…” intends. It is unclear how “each element” can be deleted “in part”.
Dependent claims 2-20 and 22 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 and 22 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 1-20 and 22). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity, as a method of authorizing a party to a transaction by sharing personally identifiable information, as are all a form of commercial or legal interaction and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
selectively sharing personally identifiable information using an authorization system, comprising the steps of:
storing a plurality of user profiles within at least one electronic database, each user profile associated with a user and linked with an electronic biometric profile for the user, a user mobile device and a set of personally identifying information regarding the user;
storing a plurality of user permissions in conjunction with each user profile in the at least one electronic database, wherein each user permission represents a prior user consent for certain entities to receive at least a specified portion of the personally identifying information regarding the user associated with the user profile;
determining, using at least a first wireless radio within a first wireless terminal, that a first user device associated with a first user has been detected at a first geographic location associated with a transacting party using the first wireless terminal operating therein, wherein the first wireless terminal is separate and distinct from the first user device and includes a biometric sensor and the first user device includes at least a portion of the set of personally identifiable information regarding the first user stored thereon;
electronically receiving a first biometric profile which is associated with the user associated with the first user device at the first wireless terminal;
capturing a first biometric capture from at least one person located at the first location using the biometric sensor;
electronically comparing the first biometric capture to the first biometric profile and determining that the first biometric capture matches the first biometric profile;
electronically receiving a requested set of personal identifying information from within the set of personally identifying information which is requested by the transacting party;
confirming that the permissions associated with the user profile associated with the first user device from the at least one database permit the sharing of the requested set of personal information with the transacting party;
retrieving at least a portion of the personally identifying information matching the requested set of personal information from the first user device;
sending the requested set of personal information associated with the first user to the first wireless terminal for utilization by the transacting party;
wherein the first wireless terminal deletes, at least in part, each element of the requested set of personal information associated with the first user after the transaction with the first user is complete.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“using an authorization system”. This is no more than “apply it” as “using an authorization system” 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).
“storing [a plurality of user profiles] within at least one electronic database, [each user profile …] linked with an electronic [biometric profile …], a user mobile device”. This is no more than “apply it” as “storing […] within at least one electronic database, […] linked with an electronic […], a user mobile device” 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).
“[determining], using at least a first wireless radio within a first wireless terminal, that a first user device […] has been detected […] using the first wireless terminal operating therein, wherein the first wireless terminal is separate and distinct from the first user device and includes a […] sensor and the first user device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the limitation 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). Furthermore, “using at least a first wireless radio within a first wireless terminal, that a first user device […] has been detected […] using the first wireless terminal operating” is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the details of how “a first user device” has been detected “using the first wireless terminal operating”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“electronically [receiving …] the first user device at the first wireless terminal”, “capturing [a first biometric capture…] using the […] sensor”, “electronically [comparing …]” and “electronically [receiving …]”. This are no more than “apply it” as they 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). Furthermore, “capturing [a first biometric capture …] using the […] sensor” is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the details of how the “first biometric capture” is captured “using the […] sensor”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
“sending […] to the first wireless terminal, wherein the first wireless terminal […]”. This are no more than “apply it” as “sending […] to the first wireless terminal” 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 party to a transaction by sharing personally identifiable information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 2, recited “wherein said determining that a first user device associated with a first user has been detected at the first location utilizes the detection by a wireless beacon signal broadcast by the first wireless terminal and received by the first user device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“a first user device […] has been detected […] utilizes the detection by a wireless beacon signal broadcast by the first wireless terminal and received by the first user device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the limitation 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). Furthermore, the limitation is no more than “apply it” because the claim fails to recite the details of how “futilizes the detection by a wireless beacon signal broadcast by the first wireless terminal and received by the first user device” detects the “first user device”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
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 party to a transaction by sharing personally identifiable information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 5, recited “wherein a first part of the first biometric profile is transmitted to the first wireless terminal directly from the user device”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[…] is transmitted to the first wireless terminal directly from the user device”. This is no more than “apply it” as the limitation 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 party to a transaction by sharing personally identifiable information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 6, recited “wherein a first part of the first biometric profile is transmitted to the first wireless terminal directly from the user device using a first wireless protocol and a second part of the second biometric profile is transmitted to the first wireless terminal from the first user device using a second wireless protocol, wherein the first wireless protocol is different from the second wireless protocol”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“[…] is transmitted to the first wireless terminal directly from the user device using a first wireless protocol”, “[…] is transmitted to the first wireless terminal from the first user device using a second wireless protocol” and “the first wireless protocol is different from the second wireless protocol”. This is no more than “apply it” as the limitations 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).
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 party to a transaction by sharing personally identifiable information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 16, 17 and 18, recited additional elements of:
“the first wireless terminal is a table computer”, “the […] sensor is a camera” and “the first user device is a smartphone or smartwatch”. This is no more than “apply it” as the limitations 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).
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 party to a transaction by sharing personally identifiable information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 22, recited “wherein the first wireless terminal does not persistently store the set of personal information associated with the first user”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements of:
“the first wireless terminal does not persistently store […]”. This is no more than “apply it” as the limitation 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 party to a transaction by sharing personally identifiable information, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 3-4, 7-15, 19-20 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 20190188720 A1 (Williams) disclosing enhanced authorization processes.
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 April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights