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 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claim 2 iw amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is written a supplemental response so as to response to Applicant’s concerns as well as further clarify the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection that is maintained.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 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. The concept of prima facie case is a procedural tool- for subject matter eligibility, it is maintained that the examiner’s burden is met by clearly articulating the reason(s) why the claimed inventio nis not eligible, for example providing a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and why it is considered an exception and identifies the additional elements in the claims (if any) and explains why they do not amount to significantly more the exception. [see MPEP 707.07(d) and 2106(III)]
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 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.”
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)). Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible.
12. Claim 9 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).
13. Claim 9 recites “receiving, …, a first request for a location …,
transmitting, …, an indication of the location …, in response to the first request,
receiving,…, a second request for a location …;
transmitting a sequence, …, …;
monitoring,…, for a response from the physical card to determine the location associated with the physical card; and
transmitting, …, an indication of the location associated with the physical card, in response to the second request.”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
The judicial exception of claim 9 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., device, authentication system that includes a processing system having one or more memories and one or more processors, etc., a card ) 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.
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 (i.e., device, authentication one or more memories and one or more processors, etc., a card )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., ).
Moreover, the courts have recognized that functions of receiving, transmitting, processing and storing data are computer functions that are well-understood routine and conventional.
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)). Thus claim 9 is patent ineligible.
14. Claim 15 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).
15. Claim 15 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 associated with the device;
receive, …, an indication of the location …;
transmit, to the device, a second location request for a location associated with a physical card that is connected to the account;
transmit,…, …;
monitor, … to determine the location associated with the physical card;
receive, from the device and in response to the second location request, an indication of the location associated with the physical card;
transmit a request for confirmation based on the location associated with the physical card failing to satisfy a condition;
receive a response to the request for confirmation; and selectively perform the action based on the response.
16. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
The judicial exception of claim 15 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., computer-readable medium storing instructions, a device) is 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.
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 (i.e., computer-readable medium, device) recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules to authorize and authenticate a financial transaction using computer technology (e.g., computer readable medium, device ).
Moreover, the courts have recognized that functions of receiving, transmitting, processing and storing data are computer functions that are well-understood routine and conventional.
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)). Thus claim 9 is patent ineligible.
17. 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.
18. 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