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 .
Acknowledgement
The Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 02/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained. Claim 1 as amended recites, “ a device that is connected to an account; a physical card…; and a processing system that includes: one or more memories; and one or more processors. It has been previously indicated that at least claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of, “authentication at multiple locations” which has been grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity related to interpersonal activities which involve transactions between people.
It was also previously indicated that The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim (now a device, a physical card and a processing system including one or more memories, one or more processors) are recited at a high level of generality. For example, according to the specification, “[0061]The user device 430 may include one or more devices capable of being used for an electronic transaction. The user device 430 may include a communication device and/or a computing device. For example, the user device 430 may include a wireless communication device, a mobile phone, a user equipment, a tablet computer, a wearable communication device (e.g., a smart wristwatch, a pair of smart eyeglasses, a head mounted display, or a virtual reality headset), or a similar type of device. Additionally, or alternatively, the user device 430 may be capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, and/or providing information associated with locations, as described elsewhere herein.”
The processing system including one or more memories and processors, according to the specification, “[0070]The memory 530 may include volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. For example, the memory 530 may include random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), a hard disk drive, and/or another type of memory (e.g., a flash memory, a magnetic memory, and/or an optical memory). The memory 530 may include internal memory (e.g., RAM, ROM, or a hard disk drive) and/or removable memory (e.g., removable via a universal serial bus connection). The memory 530 may be a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The memory 530 may store information, one or more instructions, and/or software (e.g., one or more software applications) related to the operation of the device 500.” Also “[0069] …The processor 520 may include a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, a microprocessor, a controller, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a field-programmable gate array, an application-specific integrated circuit, and/or another type of processing component. The processor 520 may be implemented in hardware, firmware, or a combination of hardware and software.”
Thus, it is maintained that the additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does not improve a computer or a technical field itself but and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Moreover, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of using rules to authenticate and/or authorize a financial transaction.
It is also the case that the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination as a whole, do not significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
the combination of elements recited in the claims performing the functions of “receiving a request to perform an action, determine a location, transmit a first location, receive, transmit and monitor…” merely describe the concept of using rules to authorize and authenticate a financial transaction using computer technology (e.g. memory, processor, user device, etc., ).
Thus the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained below.
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.
7. Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
8. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a system and claim 9 is directed to a method for use a system for authentication based upon multiple locations
9. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “authentication at multiple locations” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity related to interpersonal activities which involve transactions between people, being part of prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 1 recites “…receive a request to perform an action associated with an account; determine a location associated with the request; transmit a first location request for a location … that is connected to the account; receive, in response to the first location request, … transmit a second location request for a location … that is connected to the account; receive, in response to the second location request, an indication of the location … and selectively perform the action based on the location associated with the request, ...”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
10. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim (i.e., one or more memories, one or more processors) are recited at a high level of generality and represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does not improve a computer and does more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of using rules to authenticate and/or authorize a financial transaction.
11. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules to authorize and authenticate a financial transaction using computer technology (e.g. memory, processor, user device, etc., ). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
12. Hence, claims 1 being representative of claims 9 and 15 are not patent eligible.
13. Claims 2-4, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea whereby the claims are not related to an improvement to a computer but are related to the location associated with the user
device.
14. claims 5-14 and 16-20 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea but further implements the abstract idea.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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 D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights