DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on April 22, 2026.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 5 and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-22 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, these rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-11 of the Remarks and in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 20.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that “[t]he claims, as amended, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of computer systems in the MFA authentication process.” Remarks at 12. Applicant references paragraph 0005 of the Specification and asserts that Applicant’s invention, which solves a pain point by providing a way for a user to set up a MFA preference with an issuer, “represents a technological improvement in how authentication data is communicated across networked devices.” Id. at 12-13. Applicant further asserts that the “technical arrangement enables global MFA enrollment across multiple third-party devices through a single preference submission.” Id. at 13. However, providing a way for users to set up MFA preferences with an issuer thereby eliminating the need to separately configure MFA settings with each third party is an alleged improvement to an abstract idea and not to the technology that is being used.
Applicant further argues that “the Office has not established that the specific combination of elements recited in the claims, particularly the automatic transmission of stored MFA preferences from a server to third-party devices during transaction requests, followed by automatic enrollment based on those preferences, is well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Under the Berkheimer memorandum, the Office must provide evidence to support a finding that additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.” Remarks at 14. However, the rejection does not assert that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Instead, the claims are using programmed general purpose computing devices to implement a business process, i.e., an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that claims 6 and 7 provide a “technical architecture [that] improves authentication systems by enabling consistent MFA implementation across disparate systems.” Remarks at 14. However, Applicant has not shown that the technology being used has been improved. Instead, Applicant has described an alleged improvement to the abstract idea. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, the rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments on pages 15-19 of the Remarks. Claim 1, for example, has individual features disclosed in the prior art as shown in the non-final rejection. However, the claimed embodiment as a whole is not obvious in light of the prior art.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10, 21, and 22, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 11, 12, 14-16, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 17-20, which recite a non-transitory computer readable medium and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 20-22 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A system for electronically communicating multi-factor authentication (MFA) data, the system comprising:
a remuneration vehicle device including a first communication interface, a first electronic processor, and a first memory;
a third-party device including a second communication interface, a second electronic processor, and a second memory; and
a server including a third communication interface, a third electronic processor, and a third memory, the third electronic processor configured to:
receive, with the third communication interface, a first data packet indicating MFA preferences associated with a remuneration vehicle owner from the first communication interface,
store the MFA preferences associated with the remuneration vehicle owner in the third memory,
receive, with the third communication interface, a second data packet indicating an interaction request by the remuneration vehicle owner from the second communication interface, and
provide, with the third communication interface, a third data packet indicating an interaction response to the second communication interface,
wherein the third data packet includes the MFA preferences associated with the remuneration vehicle owner from the third memory,
wherein the second electronic processor is configured to:
receive, with the second communication interface, the third data packet, and
automatically enroll the remuneration vehicle owner associated with the remuneration vehicle device in MFA based on the MFA preferences associated with the remuneration vehicle owner of the third data packet.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the first data packet includes at least one of an automatic MFA enrollment preference, a one-time-password (OTP) type preferences, a phone number, and an email address.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the server is one of a payment processor server and an issuer server.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the remuneration vehicle device, the third-party device, and the server communicate over a network.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the third electronic processor is further configured to:
receive, with the third communication interface, a fourth data packet indicating a second interaction request from a fourth communication interface of a second third-party device that is different from the third-party device, and
provide, with the third communication interface, a fifth data packet indicating a second interaction response to the fourth communication interface,
wherein the fifth data packet includes the MFA preferences associated with the remuneration vehicle owner from the third memory.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein a fourth electronic processor of the second third-party device is configured to:
receive, with the fourth communication interface, the fifth data packet, and
enroll the remuneration vehicle owner associated with the remuneration vehicle device in MFA based on the MFA preferences associated with the remuneration vehicle owner of the fifth data packet.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the interaction request is a credit card transaction request including first credit card data.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the third electronic processor is further configured to:
receive, with the third communication interface, a fourth data packet indicating a second interaction request, wherein the second interaction request is a second credit card transaction request including second credit card data, and
determine MFA preferences associated with the remuneration vehicle owner based on the second credit card data.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the first credit card data includes a first unique card identifier that matches a unique cardholder identifier associated with the remuneration vehicle owner and the second credit card data includes a second unique card identifier that matches the unique cardholder identifier.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the third data packet includes transaction data that is encrypted by the electronic processor.
21. The system of claim 1, wherein the second electronic processor is configured to parse the third data packet to extract at least one of an MFA enrollment preference, an OTP type preference, a phone number, and an email address from the third data packet.
22. The system of claim 1, wherein the third electronic processor is configured to match a unique card identifier received with the second data packet with a unique cardholder identifier associated with the remuneration vehicle owner to extract the MFA preferences associated with the remuneration vehicle owner from the third memory.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to user authentication for a transaction. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it includes mitigating risk and a commercial interaction such as legal obligations, sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only programmed general purpose computing devices (i.e., claimed remuneration vehicle device, third-party device, and server) are needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Verma et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0073029 A1. This reference teaches generating and using OTPs for transactions.
Shenoy, Deepak. “You Can Opt Out of OTP for Small Transactions, But You Should Not,” https://premium.capitalmind.in/2016/12/you-can-opt-out-of-otp-for-small-transactions-but-you-should-not/ (Dec. 7, 2016). This reference discusses OTP preferences such as requiring OTP for transactions greater than a specified amount.
MasterCard SecureCode Merchant Implementation Guide (June 17, 2014). This reference discusses Mastercard’s SecureCode, which provides a way to authenticate cardholders at the time of purchase using an OTP. [This document was found via a google search but is encrypted and could not be attached to the Office action. This document belongs to Applicant and should be available to Applicant. It is also available at the following link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQns7EhpaSAxUvM9AFHYe8IxkQFnoECC0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mastercard.us%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fmccom%2Fen-us%2Fdocuments%2FSMI_Manual.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3Drh6YbhpMq6Xu2usQXSaE&opi=89978449 ]
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
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 extension fee 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 ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights