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 Notice of Publication of Application submitted 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2025, 09/16/2025, 07/14/2025, 07/08/2025, 06/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 13 recite, “…using the type of transaction being authenticated.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 recites a method for authenticating a transaction, claim 9 recites an apparatus (i.e., a first computing device) for authenticating a transaction.
The claim 17 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 17 recites, “computer-readable storage device” storing instructions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim(s) can be directed to a signal per se. [see MPEP 2106 (I) (i) transitory forms of signal transmission (e.g., a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495,__(Fed. Cir. 2007)].
Claims 18-20 are also rejected being dependent on claim 17.
15. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
16. 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
17. 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).
18. 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).
19. 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.
20. 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)).
21. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
22. 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.,).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sylvain (US 2017/0206525) in view of Adenuga (US 9,246,903)
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Sylvain discloses a method [¶0009]and computing device [¶0022] and a storage device [¶0054], storing instructions for authenticating a transaction of a first application executing on a first computing device (Fig. 2)(item# 205)[¶0024], the method comprising:
at the first application (Item# 205-web browser) or an application server (item# 215-web server) of the first application (web site), using one or more processors, automatically:
identifying a request for a transaction corresponding to the first application, the transaction associated with a first user account of the first application; (Fig. 2)(item# 210)[¶0024], (Fig. 3)(item# 335)[¶0039]]
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 [¶0009], [¶0021], wherein the specified second application state is indicative of:
the second application being resident on the second computing device[¶0009], 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; [¶0029], [¶0030]
Sylvain fails to disclose, but Adenuga discloses 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 application is resident on the first computing device 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. See (Fig. 1)[see Adenuga column 4, line 39 to column 5, line 9); (Fig. 2)(column 5, lines 24-43); (Fig. 3)(column 5, lines 46-60) as well as being able to be implemented in a mobile device as an applet (see column 6, lines 54 to column 7, line 3 where the authentication device sends a request to the applet in the mobile device and the applet responds to this request if it is active or that the applet sends a request to the authentication device).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date for Sylvain to have know and have considered alternative forms of authentication, as enunciated by Adenuga. The motivation would have been to provide alternative security measures for increased access security.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Sylvain discloses wherein the first application, second application, or both are web applications. [¶0024]
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Sylvain discloses wherein the specified action performed by the user on the second application is activating a user interface control.[¶0032]
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Sylvain discloses wherein searching the transaction authorization data record using the transaction to identify the second application on the second computing device and the specified second application state comprises searching the transaction authorization data record using the type of transaction being authenticated.[¶0009]
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Sylvain discloses wherein searching the transaction authorization data record using the transaction to identify the second application on the second computing device and the specified second application state comprises searching the transaction authorization data record using the geolocation of the user.[¶0033]
Regarding claims 8 and 16 Sylvain discloses further comprising, providing a notification on one of the first application, the second application, or both the first and second application to perform the specified action.[¶0031-¶0032]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nelson (US 11, 496,481) discloses efficient and authentication system, providing a directory server computer a first level of authentication to the user.
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