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 final action is in response to the applicant’s communication received on 04/24/2026 (“Amendment”).
Claim Status
Claims 1, 6, 7, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 8-18 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 19 directed to an apparatus, while claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 1 recites: A method for providing a device trust dashboard, the method comprising:
1) receiving, by communications hardware and over a communication channel, a communication from a first user device associated with a user account of a user;
2) in response to receiving the communication from the first user device, generating, by device management circuitry, a device profile for the first user device, wherein (a) the device profile is stored in a device profile repository, (b) the device profile is associated with the user account, and (c) the device profile comprises a device feature set for the first user device;
3) determining, by the device management circuitry and using a device trust scoring model, a device trust score for the first user device, wherein the device trust score is determined based on the device feature set;
4) determining, by the device management circuitry and based on the device trust score and a user preference set associated with the user, an authorization rule set for the first user device;
5) updating, by the device management circuitry, the device profile for the first user device to comprise the device trust score for the first user device and the authorization rule set for the first user device;
6) receiving, by the communications hardware, a device trust dashboard request, wherein the device trust dashboard request comprises candidate user credentials;
7) performing, by verification circuitry and based on the received candidate user credentials, a verification routine for the user; and
8) in an instance in which the user is successfully verified, providing, by the communications hardware, the device trust dashboard to the first user device, wherein the device trust dashboard comprises (a) a representation of the device profile for the first user device comprising the device trust score and the authorization rule set and (b) software instructions for an interaction element that enables the user to modify the device profile.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))
The claim recites a process of providing representation of a profile for a first user device and an interaction element for the purpose of user to modify the profile as in step 8. The system 1)-2) creates a profile for each device that for a user device that comprises feature set (attributes of the device) after receiving communication from a user; 3) determines using a model, a device trust score for the first user device based on the attribute; 4) determines based on the device trust score and a user preference set associated with the user, an authorization rule set for the user device; 5) updates the device profile for the user device, the device profile having trust score and authorization rule; 6) receiving a device trust dashboard request (i.e., display request) wherein the request includes user credentials; 7) performing based on the user credentials a verification routine for the user; and 8) when the user is successfully verified, providing or displaying the trust dashboard.
The claim is analogous to performing determination of a trust score and authorization rule set for an individual utilizing a trust score model and attribute of the individual (i.e., generated profile of the individual); receiving credential from a user; and when the user is successfully verified using the credential, providing the user with a) the trust score and authorization rule set and b) instructions that enables the user to modify their profile in order to enhance their trust score. As such, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (i.e., mitigating risk as in economic practices and/or following rules or instructions). The claim’s recitations of steps 3-5 also fall within the mental processes, i.e., concepts that can be performed in the human mind with pen and paper.
Other independent claims, claims 19 and 20, are significantly similar to claim 1. As such, claims 19 and 20 also recite abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e. circuitry(s), device(s), communication hardware, communication channel, repository, dashboard, an apparatus comprising the circuitry(s) and the communication hardware, and computer product comprising at least one a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea as described above in the Step 2A (prong 1), and/or merely uses a computer and/or its components as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitation(s) do not represent: Improvements to the functioning of additional elements individually or in combination, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, the dashboard is merely a mean for outputting the information and instructions such as displaying, i.e., insignificant extract-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment (computer). Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited computer or its components.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 2 further expands on the abstract idea of generating and providing a trust improvement event, detecting of the event and updating of the trust score based on the performance of the event.
Dependent claims 3-5 further expands on the abstract idea of claim 2 with additional description of what the trust improvement event includes, i.e., performing an action at one of the one or more candidate ATMs using the first user device; transaction with one or more candidate merchants using the first user device; visit one of the one or more candidate institution locations and perform an authentication routine using the first user device. In other words, the claim further expands on the description of the data that is determined and detected.
Dependent claim 6 further expands on the abstract idea of authentication for updating the device trust score.
Dependent claim 7 further expands on the abstract idea of using captured image for authentication for updating of the device trust score.
Accordingly, it is determined that claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, and 20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are ineligible.
Response to Argument(s)
The applicant presents three assertions in arguing that the claims integrates the judicial exception to practical application, i.e., 1) by automatically generating a device profile, storing the device profile in a device profile repository, and associating the device profile with the user account so that the device profile may be included in the device trust dashboard; 2) improves system efficiency and user account security by determining a device trust score and authorization rule set for the device and updating the device profile accordingly; and 3) the device trust dashboard itself is a technological improvement that provides enhanced control over user account security at the device level by providing device trust dashboard that comprises a representation of the device profile for the first user device and instructions for an interaction element that enables the user to modify the device profile.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim’s recitation of device trust dashboard is a mere representation of information, i.e., the device profile that has been determined and instructions. The determination (generating) of the device profile using various data is an abstract idea described above in the 101 section that does not improve upon the communication hardware, device management circuitry, or the verification circuitry, individually or in combination thereof. These additional elements are mere instructions or computer (components) that is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no indication that the displaying of such information improves the system or its components individually or in combination or security as asserted by the applicant.
The applicant asserts that the claims are eligible at Step 2B as they recite combinations that go well beyond any well-understood, routine, or conventional activity (as evidenced by the lack of an art rejection). In response, the applicant is reminded that the prior art rejection was dropped based on the claim as a whole, including the judicial exception(s), not based on the additional elements. As stated above in the 101 rejection section, the additional element(s) are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea as described above in the Step 2A (prong 1), and/or merely uses a computer and/or its components as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The cited references, either alone or in combination, do not teach the particulars of the claimed elements as a whole. See below analysis.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220114587 A1 discloses system and method for binding device(s) with a hub of a local network. The publication discloses creating a device profile for the device which includes information such as spending controls and a device identifier. Upon receiving payment request from the device, the device is authenticated using the device identifier and the payment parameters of the payment request are determined in order to verify that the parameters do not violate the spending control in the device profile. The publication further discloses client device that receives and displays screens including device profiles and also use of username and password to provide information regarding payment rules and limits of any of devices. The disclosure, however, does teach device trust score, the generation of the device trust score, and that the device trust score along with the user preference are used to determine the authorization rules of the device as recited in the claim.
US 20120233665 A1 discloses assigning of a dynamic trust score that may be updated as needed, wherein the trust score of a device and the updates are based on various activities and information associated with the device. The trust score is based on parameters of the device, i.e., device type, registered device location, device phone number, device ID, etc., and activities the device engages in such of amount of transactions, dollar amount of transactions, amount of denied transactions, amount of denied requests, amount of approved requests, location of requests, etc. The disclosure also discloses a device profile that includes the dynamic trust score. Since the trust score is dynamic, a system receiving a transaction from the device can have more accurate information about the device and allow accurate assessment of the risk associated with the request. The disclosure, however, does not teach that the device profile includes the authorization rule, generating of the authorization rule based on the device trust score and a user preference set associated with the user of the user device, and user credential protected dashboard comprising of at least a representation of the device profile for the device.
US 10826889 B2 discloses a device that determines a registered device associated with the customer is a trusted device, a location trust value for the applicant device based on a geolocation proximity between the applicant device and the trusted device, and an environment trust value for the applicant device based on a proximity in a network topology between the applicant device and the trusted device. The device further determines a trust score for the applicant device based on the location trust value and the environment trust value, and sends a signed certificate to the applicant device over the network when the trust score for the applicant device exceeds a threshold. The patent also discloses a dashboard that shows device profile including trust score.
PNG
media_image1.png
454
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The patent, however, does not teach the particulars of determining of authorization rule set for the device based on the device trust score and a user preference set associated with the user and updating of the device profile to include the user device trust score and the authorization rule set for the user device.
US 20100274597 A1 discloses a methods and systems for establishing an identity confidence database, particularly activities that either increase or decrease confidence score in a customer and granting of additional privileges or removing of privileges based on the dynamic confidence score.
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 STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights