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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 filed March 5, 2026 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-20 are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics.
The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
receiving a first input at… by a consumer, the first input being a series of numbers representing a consumer’s phone number;
querying a … that links consumers’ phone numbers with associated financial accounts;
displaying a plurality of financial accounts on… to the consumer based on the query, each of the plurality of financial accounts being linked to the consumer’s phone number in the phone database;
selecting one of the plurality of financial accounts by the consumer to conduct a financial transaction;
receiving a second input at the… by the consumer, the second input being a biometric trait of the consumer;
comparing the biometric trait of the consumer with a corresponding stored copy of the biometric trait of the consumer stored in a… wherein the… maintained by different organizations; and
authorizing the financial transaction using the selected financial account if the biometric trait entered by the consumer matches the corresponding stored copy of the biometric trait of the consumer,
and rejecting the financial transaction using the selected financial account if the biometric trait entered by the consumer does not match the corresponding stored copy of the biometric trait of the consumer.
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics with generally recited computer elements such as an user interface, phone database, and biometric database, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an user interface to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 2 and 17, although these claims recite a generally recited user interface, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claims 3, 9, 10, and 19, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 4-6, 13, 15, and 16, although these claims recite a generally recited biometric database, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claims 7 and 20, although these claims recite a generally recited user interface, POS device, display screen, number pad, and biometric reader, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claim 8, although this claim recites a generally recited user interface, computer device, display screen, number pad, and biometric reader, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Regarding dependent claims 11, 12 and 18, although these claims recite a generally recited phone database, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Regarding dependent claim 14, although this claim recites a generally recited phone database and biometric database, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
20. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
21. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheets (US 2022/0318355) in view of Shakkarwar (US 2017/0372428).
22. Re Claim 1: Sheets discloses comprising:
receiving a first input at a user interface by a consumer, the first input being a series of numbers representing a consumer’s phone number (see [0053] user ID could be phone number);
displaying a plurality of financial accounts on the user interface to the consumer based on the query, each of the plurality of financial accounts being linked to the consumer’s phone number in the phone database (see [0094] identifying potential user accounts);
selecting one of the plurality of financial accounts by the consumer to conduct a financial transaction (see [0038] selected from touchscreen, [0108] subset of accounts can be selected);
receiving a second input at the user interface by the consumer, the second input being a biometric trait of the consumer (see [0041] receiving biometric data from biometric reader);
comparing the biometric trait of the consumer with a corresponding stored copy of the biometric trait of the consumer stored in a biometric database, wherein the biometric database and the phone database are maintained by different organizations (see [0042] biometric templates compared, [0050] can compare biometric templates to find matches, [0034] user identifier database and biometric database); and
authorizing the financial transaction using the selected financial account if the biometric trait entered by the consumer matches the corresponding stored copy of the biometric trait of the consumer (see [0062] generating authentication if matching biometric template),
and rejecting the financial transaction using the selected financial account if the biometric trait entered by the consumer does not match the corresponding stored copy of the biometric trait of the consumer (see [0088] if biometric does not match template, login attempt rejected).
However, Sheets fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Shakkarwar teaches:
querying a phone database that links consumers’ phone numbers with associated financial accounts (see [0096] phone number database);
From the teaching of Shakkarwar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sheets’ use of biometric authentication data with Shakkarwar‘s teaching of in order “… for controlling payment processing (see Shakkarwar [0002]).”
23. Re Claims 2, 17: Sheets discloses further comprising receiving a third input at the user interface by the consumer, the third input being a PIN or password, wherein the plurality of financial accounts is only displayed if the PIN or password matches a corresponding stored copy of the PIN or password (see [0054] PIN or password).
24. Re Claims 3, 19: Sheets discloses wherein the biometric trait is a fingerprint (see [0037] fingerprint reader, [0041] user’s fingerprint data).
25. Re Claims 4, 13: Sheets discloses wherein the corresponding stored copy of the biometric trait is stored in a biometric database with many stored copies of the biometric trait, each stored copy of the biometric trait being associated with a different consumer (see [0077] copy of reference biometric template in user database).
26. Re Claims 5, 15: Sheets discloses wherein the biometric database is maintained by a financial institution associated with the selected one of the plurality of financial accounts (see [0077] application service provider computer can store user database).
27. Re Claims 6, 16: Sheets discloses wherein the biometric database is maintained by a governmental organization (see [0077] application service provider computer could be government organization).
28. Re Claims 7, 20: Sheets discloses wherein the user interface is a point of sale (POS) device physically located at a merchant site, the POS comprising a display screen, a number pad and a biometric reader (see [0036] POS terminal, [0038] touchscreen, [0024-0025] biometric reader).
29. Re Claim 8: Sheets discloses wherein the user interface is a computer device located remote from a merchant site, the computer device comprising a display screen, a number pad and a biometric reader (see [0047, 0069] website, [0038] touchscreen, [0024-0025] biometric reader).
30. Re Claim 9: Sheets discloses wherein the financial transaction comprises a purchase from a merchant (see [0036] POS terminal).
31. Re Claim 10: Sheets discloses wherein the purchase is authorized without the consumer presenting a physical or digital financial card to the merchant (see [0036] payment card).
32. Re Claim 11: Sheets discloses further comprising a phone database, the phone database linking many consumers’ phone numbers with financial accounts associated with each consumer (see [0034] user identifier database 150C would have phone numbers).
33. Re Claim 12: Sheets discloses wherein the phone database is maintained by a financial services organization different from financial institutions associated with the plurality of financial accounts (see [0034] user identifier database 150C can be maintained by anyone).
34. Re Claim 14: Sheets discloses wherein the biometric database and the phone database are maintained by different organizations (see [0034, 0077] both databases are not specified by who is maintaining them).
35. Re Claim 18: Sheets discloses wherein the PIN or password Is linked to the consumer's phone number, the PIN or password being stored in the phone database (see [0054, 0093] PIN or password).
Examiner Notes
36. The Examiner suggests fleshing out how these inputs are received. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 16 (which is dependent on 14 which is dependent on 13 which is dependent on 11), claim 10 (which is dependent on 9) together into the independent claims.
37. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Response to Arguments
38. Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, the applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which has now been addressed by a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection which addresses the new claim amendments as noted above.
a) Argument #1: Claims do not recite a judicial exception because it is not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and therefore not an abstract idea
39. The Examiner respectfully disagrees in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, therefore it is maintained. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics, which falls under commercial or legal interactions, or could also fall under fundamental economic practices. In MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), it describes concepts relating to managing relationships or transactions between people, or satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation, as being under certain methods of organizing human activity. Authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics would fall under sales activities or behaviors and business relations, therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
b) Argument #2: Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 (improvement in technology)
40. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite an user interface, phone database, and biometric database, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of analysis of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
41. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
42. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., an user interface, phone database, and biometric database, that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
43. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to an abstract idea of authorizing financial transactions using a phone number and biometrics. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
c) Argument #3: Applicant argues that the claim elements are significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B
44. Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
45. Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
46. Here the only additional elements recited in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea are: an user interface, phone database, and biometric database, generic computer components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
47. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
48. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ahmed et al (Security in Next Generation Mobile Payment Systems: A Comprehensive Survey, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
49. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
50. 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.
51. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
52. 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.
53. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
54. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights