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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 5/19/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 8, 15 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 8, 15 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to validate authentication credentials. Specifically, the claims recite receive and validate authentication credentials of a user by comparing the authentication credentials to stored authentication credentials; generate and transmit to a user device, a list of recommended contacts for display, the list of recommended contacts being derived from stored user data associated with the stored authentication credentials; receive, via a network and from the user device, a request to create a shared resource pool of resources that has a finite resource cap, the request indicating at least one contact from the list of recommended contacts transmitted to the user device that is to be included as a participant in the shared resource pool, wherein the shared resource pool is augmented in response to ascertained completion of one or more objectives that must be completed to reach the finite resource cap; receive, via the network, one or more user requests from a plurality of users that include the at least one contact, the one or more user requests initiating incorporating of the plurality of users in the shared resource pool; authenticate respective authentication credentials of the plurality of users by comparing the respective authentication credentials to stored user authentication credentials, and based thereon grant access to the shared resource pool; maintain a user records log of user contributions for completing the one or more objectives, the user records log tracking individual user contribution amounts and timestamps associated with each contribution; update status data responsive to updates to the user records log such that status data being used to initiate display of a progress status indicator representing completion of the one or more objectives, the progress status indicator reflecting a percentage of completion relative to the finite resource cap; transmitting, from a user device and over a network to a computing system, authentication credentials of a user and a request to authenticate the authentication credentials; receiving, by the user device from the computing system and via the network, confirmation that the computing system successfully authenticated the authentication credentials; receiving from the computing system via the network, a list of recommended contacts derived from user data associated with the authentication credentials; wherein generating the list of recommended contacts comprises querying a relational database that records user‑to‑user interaction patterns and creates perceived user relationships based on a frequency of user‑to‑user interactions; displaying, via a user interface of the user device, the list of recommended contacts for selection as a potential participant in a resource pooling campaign; transmitting, from the user device via the network, a request to create a shared resource pool of resources that has a finite resource cap, the request indicating at least one contact from the list of recommended contacts to be included as a participant in the shared resource pool, wherein the shared resource pool is augmented in response to ascertained completion of one or more objectives that must be completed to reach the finite resource cap; transmitting, to the computing system, a request for authentication of the at least one contact; receiving confirmation, from the computing system via the network, that the at least one contact was successfully authenticated by the computing system, and based thereon, granted access to the shared resource pool of resources; receiving status data indicating completion of the one or more objectives and based thereon generating and displaying a progress status indicator representing the completion of user contributions towards completing the one or more objectives, wherein the progress status indicator reflects a percentage of completion relative to the finite resource cap; receiving, via the network, an indication representing (i) satisfaction of the finite resource cap and (ii) distribution of one or more resources to a user account of the user, wherein the distribution is performed by the computing system in response to detecting that the finite resource cap has been reached, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as memory device and a processor merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the memory device and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions distribute, once the finite resource cap is satisfied, one or more resources to user accounts of the plurality of users, the one or more resources that are distributed to each of the user accounts being less than the shared resource pool, wherein the distribution is performed automatically in response to detecting that the finite resource cap has been reached based on the user records log, displaying a notification via the user interface indicating the distribution of the one or more resources to the user account. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a memory device and a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of validate authentication credentials. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the memory device and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions of distribute, once the finite resource cap is satisfied, one or more resources to user accounts of the plurality of users, the one or more resources that are distributed to each of the user accounts being less than the shared resource pool , displaying a notification via the user interface indicating the distribution of the one or more resources to the user account. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of validate authentication credentials. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 further describe the abstract idea of validate authentication credentials. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of validate authentication credentials which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to validate authentication credentials does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to memory device and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions of distribute, once the finite resource cap is satisfied, one or more resources to user accounts of the plurality of users, the one or more resources that are distributed to each of the user accounts being less than the shared resource pool, wherein the distribution is performed automatically in response to detecting that the finite resource cap has been reached based on the user records log, displaying a notification via the user interface indicating the distribution of the one or more resources to the user account. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to validate authentication credentials does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to memory device and a processor are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of validate authentication credentials. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Friedman, U.S. Patent 8838795, teaches in a resource-sharing system comprising a host element, a shareable resource associated with the host element, and a presence server that is communicatively coupled to the host element, presence information of the shareable resource is provided. Resource data from the host element is provided to a guest element via a resource proxy server.
2. Liu, U.S. Patent App 20140122608, teaches disclosed are a resource sharing method and device, and a storage medium. The technical solution in the embodiments of the present invention is applied to use a relationship chain to perform authentication control. When a resource download link is generated, corresponding relationship chain information is added into the link, and the resource download link is recorded and sent by a sharing server. When a user needs to perform downloading according to the received resource download link, authentication is performed on the user according to the relationship chain information. Only users who have the friendly relationship corresponding to the relationship chain are permitted to download specific contents, thereby introducing a controlled resource sharing mechanism in the existing download platform system, controlling contents to be legally and orderly spread, and at the same time enabling the resource spreading process to be traced.
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).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights