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
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 01/20/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 7 – 14, 19, and 20 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 3 – 6, and 15 – 18 remain as original.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 101 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 12/19/2025 as to claims 1 – 20 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 12/19/2025 as to claims 1 – 3, 6 – 8, 10, 11, 13 – 15, and 18 – 20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1 – 20, Applicant argues that the claims as amended are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because they meet the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court. Remarks 8 - 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject claims noted were analyzed pursuant to MPEP 2106, et seq., and are still considered ineligible. Step 1 is met because the claims are directed towards one of the four statutory categories; Part 2A-Prong1 of the test is trying to evaluate if the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)); Part 2A-Prong 2 is to evaluate whether the subject claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, and, lastly, Part 2B checks whether the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the amended claim set will follow below.
As regards 35 USC 101, the claims as a whole amount to a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations when taken individually and in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field nor improvements to the function of the computer itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the specifics of the claims follows below.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 that claims 1 - 20 as amended do not recite a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong One. Remarks 8 – 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner previously opined that the instant claim limitations (and, now, as amended) broadly interpreted cover performance of the limitation(s) as certain methods of organizing human activity which includes the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract idea embodied in the most recent amended claims of 1/20/2026 is:
determining, … a voice print of the user based on the first audible
response to the first authorization question;
based on determining that the voice print of the user does not match an
expected voice print of the user, and
based on determining that the first audible response to the first authorization question comprises a first correct answer,
generating a second authorization question based on the data associated with the user;
based on a second audible response to the second authorization question comprising a second correct answer, determining to grant a request for authorization to
perform an action requested by the user, and
updating, … the expected voice print of the user.
Applicant argues however per 35 USC 101 that it has claimed specific improvements involving computerized authentication requirements. Remarks 9 – 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The above bolded claimed abstract idea can easily be kept in one’s head. Namely, if user’s voice sound is initially insufficient for authentication purposes given user’s correct answer, then user takes another voice try, and, if that correct answer voice sound is successful, then authentication can be granted and files updated. No pen and paper are even needed because this is easily kept in the mind.
Applicant argues per Step 2B essentially the same thing as above. Thus that argument is similarly rejected.
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.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Independent claims 1, 13, and 20:
A method (claim 1), an apparatus (claim 15) and an non-transitory media storing instructions (claim 20); note claim 1 is here used with hardware added as needed):
Claims 1, 13, and 20 (claim 1 being analyzed):
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from a user, and via a listening device, an a first
audible response to a first authorization question generated based on data associated with the user;
determining, by the computing device, a voice print of the user based on the first audible
response to the first authorization question;
based on determining that the voice print of the user does not match an
expected voice print of the user, and
based on determining that the first audible response to the first authorization question comprises a first correct answer,
generating a second authorization question based on the data associated with the user;
based on a second audible response to the second authorization question comprising a second correct answer, determining to grant a request for authorization to perform an action requested by the user, and
updating, based on the first audible response to the first authorization question and based on the determination that the voice print of the user does not match the expected voice print of the user, the expected voice print of the user.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method (claim 1, process), an apparatus (claim 13, machine), and a non-transitory media storing instructions (claim 20, composition). Thus, these claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claim recites the limitation of determining, a voice print of the user based on the first audible response to the first authorization question; based on determining that the voice print of the user does not match an expected voice print of the user, and based on determining that the first audible response to the first authorization question comprises a first correct answer, generating a second authorization question based on the data associated with the user; based on a second audible response to the second authorization question comprising a second correct answer, determining to grant a request for authorization to perform an action requested by the user, and updating, the expected voice print of the user. These above claim limitations, as drafted, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of being performed using a computing device, non-transitory computer readable media, listening device, processors, memory, storage, and instructions. That is, other than reciting a computing device, non-transitory computer readable media, listening device, processors, memory, storage, and instructions, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses determining/comparing one’s voice sounds rendered in audible responses to a challenge questions and determining whether to grant or deny authorization and updating. The mere nominal recitations of an apparatus, processors, memories, storage, non-transitory storage media, and instructions, do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing, unbolded, underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claims 1, 13, and 20 recite additional elements or steps of using a computing device, non-transitory computer readable media, listening device, processors, memory, storage, and instructions to authenticate. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means for using said elements as tools) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, these limitations merely describe generally “applying” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer controller, as noted above. The computing device, non-transitory computer readable media, listening device, processors, memory, storage, and instructions are recited at a high level of generality and they merely automate the several determining / in response to determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic devices, processors, memories, and/or generic computer-readable media, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the several determining / in response to determining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. There is nothing in the disclosure that recites that the computing device, non-transitory computer readable media, listening device, processors, memory, storage, and instructions are anything other than a conventional, generic, computer and/or computer controlled components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the above underlined several elements / steps of receiving, determining, determining, determining, and updating, regarding access, amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity and are supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 12, and 14 – 19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2 – 12, and 14 – 19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the above rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 20.
Given the above analyses, all claims 1 – 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the additional rejection herein pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the claims' limitations most recently set forth herein may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Jung (US20060292539A1) - A system and method for use with a voice-capable system, includes but is not limited to posing at least one question for which at least one associated-correct answer is known; receiving one or more answers to the at least one question for which the at least one associated-correct answer is known; posing at least one question for which at least one associated-correct answer is unknown; receiving one or more answers to the at least one question for which the at least one associated-correct answer is unknown; and storing at least one of the one or more answers to the at least one question for which the at least one associated-correct answer is unknown.
Talmor (US20060292539A1) - A remote authentication system for authenticating remotely located users of authenticable communication devices, comprises a device authenticator for obtaining an authenticated device identity, a user authenticator for obtaining a personal biometric measure from voice transmitted from the communication device by the user, and a database of biometric measures and device identities for allowing the personal biometric measure received at the user authenticator to be related via the communication device identity to a prestored personal biometric measure of a legitimate user of the authenticable communication device, thereby to authenticate the user. A preferred biometric measure is a voice print and a preferred communication device is a mobile telephony device, whose device identity or CLI is authenticated upon log-in. Authentications can be user initiated or center initiated and do not require specialized equipment at the point of authentication.
Rapowitz (US20220335433A1) = Aspects described herein may use behavioral biometric data to authenticate an individual that requests performance of an action related to a financial account. In response to the request, challenge questions relating to recent transactions conducted with the financial account may be generated. The challenge questions may be provided to the individual and may prompt the individual for audile response and/or touch input responses. Behavioral biometric data may be extracted from the responses and may be used to determine a likelihood the individual is an authorized user of the account.
Rangaraj (US10074089B1) - The systems and methods described herein allow an electronic transaction to be performed upon determining, via biometric data, that an authorized individual is conducting the transaction. This may involve receiving, by a computer system, a request to authorize an electronic transaction for an account. The computer system is configured to access a phone number, which is stored in computer memory and associated with the enrolled user of the account. An automated and outward call to the phone number is performed by the computer system. The computer system is configured to capture a voiceprint in association with voice data received from the automated call. The captured voiceprint is compared to a registered voiceprint, which is stored in the computer memory in association with the enrolled user. The computer system responds to the request to authorize the secure electronic transaction based on said comparison.
Bodvarsson (US20140003636A1) - this would also constitute an "always on" listening device; Each listening device of a binaural listening system comprises a signal processing unit for processing a signal comprising audio and for performing logic actions based on one or more control inputs, and an antenna and transceiver unit for establishing said wireless link. The transceiver unit comprises a transmit control unit allowing the transmission of first data with a first level of transmission power providing a first operating transmission range and the transmission of second data with a second level of transmission power providing a second operating transmission range, wherein said second operating transmission range is larger than said first operating transmission range. Receive control units of the listening devices are adapted to extract the first control signal from the first data received from the respective opposite listening device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights