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 Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 05/28/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 are presented amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2026, 03/31/2026 and 02/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Interview May 27, 2026
In regards to 35 U.S.C. 101- The Applicant assert that the instant claims are similar in context to Cosmokey Solutions case wherein the Federal Circuit held the claims of Cosmokey satisfied the Alice two step 2A analysis because the claims recited a specific unconventional improvement to a computer security and authentication functionality specifically addressing hacking prevention via mobile device interaction. Particularly, the method involved authenticating the identity of a user performing a transaction at a terminal (e.g., a computer), including activating an authentication function on the user’s mobile device, whereby the specification describes as long as the user is in control of his mobile device, the authentication method assures no party can fake the identification data of the user or perform transactions in the user’s place.
In Cosmokey it seemed that the courts interpretation of improvement of the computer itself relied heavily upon interpretation of the specification, whereas as in examination, it is considered improper to import claim limitations from the specification. Thus, it is maintained that, "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. [see MPEP 2111.01]
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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
10. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method for authenticating a transaction, Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., computing device) and claim 17 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. storage a method for use by a system of acquiring and using credit
11. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “authenticating a transaction” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity, in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
12. Claims 1 recites, “identifying a request for a transaction corresponding to the first application, the transaction associated with a first user account of the first application;
responsive to identifying the request: identifying a transaction authorization data record corresponding to the transaction, the transaction authorization data record specifying, corresponding to the transaction, a second application executing on a second computing device, a specified second application state, and a specified second application state change, wherein the specified second application state is indicative of: the second application…, a prespecified second user account associated with the second application having an active authentication state on the second application, and wherein the second application state change comprises an action performed by a user at the second application within a prespecified time, the prespecified second user account being prespecified for use in authenticating the transaction for the first user account of the first application;
according to the transaction authorization data record, determining, by communicating with the second application, an application state service, or the application server of the second application:
whether a current state of the second application corresponds to the specified second application state, the determination verifying that the second … and the prespecified second user account having the active authentication state with the second application; and whether the user performed the specified action within the prespecified time to effectuate the second application state change; and
responsive to determining that the current state of the second application corresponds to the specified second application state according to the transaction authorization data record and that the user performed the specified action within the prespecified time:
authenticating the transaction based on a verification that the second application is in the specified second application state; and processing the transaction upon successful authentication. ”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
13. 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 such as “computing device”, “hardware processor”, “memory” are recited at a high level of generality and thus represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no 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 authenticating a transaction.
14. 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 authenticating a transaction using computer technology (i.e., computer device, hardware processor, memory, 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)).
15. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
16. Independent claims 9 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons wherein the 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 authenticating a transaction using computer technology (i.e., computer device, hardware processor, memory, etc.,).
Conclusion
17. 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.
18. 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