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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 3/30/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are previously presented.
Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the location of the customer electronic device is not just a tool to implement the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive. The use of device location is both claimed and described in the specification at a high level of generality such that it does not convey a technological improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. Requiring different levels of authorization based on location is part of the abstract idea which is independently abstract. The additional element of using the location of the customer device to provide location is merely using generic computing technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea. This is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). This is also generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea. As such, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, nor do they provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramalingam (US 2011/0238514 A1) are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the level of transaction verification in the reference is entirely based on the user classification of the merchant and not the location of the customer electronic device. However, the "trusted merchant" in the reference is not independent of location. The reference clearly discloses that transaction processing, including the level of verification, is only performed after detecting that the mobile device is at the merchant location. Thus, the application of reduced authentication is dependent on the device presence at that location. Thus, the "trusted merchant" designation works in conjunction with location. For example, the reference discloses "... transactions with the most trusted merchants may be completed automatically merely by the user 102 (and the mobile device 104) entering a location of the merchant". Accordingly, the reference discloses that reduced verification is applied based on the device being at a particular merchant location.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 9, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramalingam (US 2011/0238514 A1) in view of Khandare (US 2023/0164570 A1) have been considered but are not persuasive. The arguments rely on the arguments presented with regards to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and are unpersuasive for the aforementioned reasons.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or non-transitory computer readable medium, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 10 and product claim 16. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A method comprising:
receiving, at a safe space computer program and from a customer electronic device associated with a customer, safe space locations, wherein transactions conducted in the safe space locations require a lower level of customer authentication than transactions conducted in other locations;
receiving, by the safe space computer program and from the customer electronic device, a transaction;
determining, by the safe space computer program, the customer electronic device is in one of the safe space location; and
authorizing, by the safe space computer program, the transaction with the lower level of customer authentication.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they set forth or describe authorization of a transaction when a customer is at a safe space location. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computer program in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 10 and 16 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: computer program
Claim 10: customer electronic device executing a customer computer program; electronic device executing a safe space computer program
Claim 16: non-transitory computer readable storage medium
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. See Applicant’s specification para. [0074] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 16 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramalingam (US 2011/0238514 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16, Ramalingam discloses a method, and associated system and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, comprising:
receiving, at a safe space computer program and from a customer electronic device associated with a customer, safe space locations, wherein transactions conducted in the safe space locations require a lower level of customer authentication than transactions conducted in other locations (see para. 0047, 0065-0067);
receiving, by the safe space computer program and from the customer electronic device, a transaction (see para. 0047, 0065-0067);
determining, by the safe space computer program, the customer electronic device is in one of the safe space location (see para. 0047, 0060, 0065-0067); and
authorizing, by the safe space computer program, the transaction with the lower level of customer authentication (see para. 0047, 0065-0067).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Ramalingam discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the safe space computer program receives a global positioning system location for each of the safe space locations (see para. 0052).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 17, Ramalingam discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the step of determining, by the safe space computer program, the customer electronic device is in one of the safe space locations comprises: receiving, by the safe space computer program, a global positioning system location for a current location for the customer electronic device; and determining, by the safe space computer program, that the global positioning system location for the current location for the customer electronic device is in one of the global positioning system locations for one of the safe space locations (see para. 0052).
Regarding claim 4, Ramalingam discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the safe space computer program receives electronic environment information for each of the safe space locations (see para. 0058).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 18, Ramalingam discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the electronic environment information comprises an identification of cell towers that are in communication with the customer electronic device at the safe space location (see para. 0039, wherein the claim is reasonably interpreted as covering receiving location information from cell tower triangulation, which involves identification of cell towers in the location).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 18, Ramalingam discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the electronic environment information comprises an identification of electronic devices connected to the customer electronic device at the safe space location (see par. 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Ramalingam discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the electronic environment information comprises computer network information for the safe space location (see para. 0028).
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 19, Ramalingam discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the step of determining, by the safe space computer program, the customer electronic device is in one of the safe space locations comprises: receiving, by the safe space computer program, electronic environment information for a current location for the customer electronic device; and comparing, by the safe space computer program, the electronic environment information for the current location for the customer electronic device to the electronic environment information for each of the safe spaces; wherein the customer electronic device is in one of the safe space locations when a threshold amount of the electronic environment information for the current location for the customer electronic device matches the electronic environment information for each of the safe spaces (see para. 0052, 0060).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramalingam (US 2011/0238514 A1) in view of Khandare (US 2023/0164570 A1):
Regarding claims 9, 15, and 20, Ramalingam, as discussed above, discloses determining, by the safe space computer program, the customer electronic device is in one of the safe space locations. Ramalingam does not explicitly disclose, but Khandare teaches: determining a confidence score that the customer electronic device is in a safe location; wherein the confidence score is based in part on a value of the transaction (see para. 0024-0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system/product of Ramalingam to include the feature taught by Khandare.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to identify issues with current transactions (see Khandare, para. 0024-0025)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colon (US 2024/0323174 A1) discloses a computer server which may receive location data from a mobile client device and may compare the location data to predefined secure location definitions, which may be trusted or private locations. The computer server may receive a request from the mobile client device to access network resources or services, and the computer server may determine, using a result of comparing the location data and the one or more predefined secure location definitions, an authentication process for providing the mobile client device with access to the network resources or services. The computer server may execute the authentication process and may provide the mobile client device with access to the network resources or services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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 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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights