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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the first Office action on the merits on 11/5/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
The claims filed 2/18/2026 are entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12-15, and 18-20 are currently amended.
Claims 7-8, 11, and 17 are original.
Claims 3, 6, 9, and 16 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea is maintained herein. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims should be found eligible in view of USPTO Example 35. The argument is not persuasive. Example 35 claims 2 and 3 were found eligible because the specific combination of steps operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. In contrast, representative claim 1 merely recites generic components performing their ordinary functions and is more similar to ineligible claim 1 of the same example. The claim broadly recites collecting location, image/video, and behavior data; analyzing the data; computing a risk score; comparing the score to a threshold; and granting access based on the result. These additional elements are described at a high level of generality such that they do not convey a technological improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, 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 which is independently abstract.
35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the current amendments.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are directed to a method, system, and non-transitory product, 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 12 and product claim 20. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computer-implemented method for real-time, secure digital verification, executed by one or more processors, comprising:
instructing, via digital verification application executing on a user device, a user to provide personal data, the personal data including real-time location information captured from at least one sensor of the user device;
receiving behavior data about the user, the behavior data comprising at least one of (i) a fraud risk score, (ii) a confidence score, or (iii) a behavioral deviation score generated by one or more machine-learning models trained on prior user activity;
verifying the user based on at least one of the personal data and the behavior data, wherein the real-time location information is collected contemporaneously with a verification event, including verifying that the location information is obtained within a predefined temporal window of a verification request;
receiving a video or image captured by the user device during the predefined temporal window, the video or image including visual evidence associated with the user's physical location;
verifying the location information by correlating (i) the real-time location information from the sensor with (ii) location data extracted from the video or image using image analysis;
computing a composite risk score using at least the verified location information and the behavior data, the composite risk score representing a quantified likelihood that the user is authorized;
determining, based on the composite risk score satisfying at least one threshold condition, whether to grant the user access to an asset, including dynamically determining an extent of partial access to the asset prior to full authorization based on the composite risk score; and
authorizing access to the asset according to the dynamically determined extent of partial access.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations 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 determining whether to grant a user access to an asset, wherein, in view of the specification, the asset may be funds (mitigating risk). 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 recitation of “computer-implemented” (preamble), “digital verification application executing on a user device”, “sensor of the user device”, and “machine-learning models trained on prior user activity” of claim 1 is just (1) applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations; and (2) generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 12 and 20 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-implemented (preamble), digital verification application executing on a user device, sensor of the user device, and machine-learning models trained on prior user activity
Claim 12: claim 1 additional elements; processor, memory, program instructions
Claim 20: claim 1 additional elements; non-transitory computer readable medium, program code
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, 12, and 20 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. [0068-0072] 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, 12, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 12, and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 4 and 14 recite limitations drawn to receiving and analyzing a video/image to extract location information and a reverse image search. Claims 5 and 15 recites limitations drawn to trilateration or triangulation. Claims 10 and 19 recites limitations drawn to applying one or more AI and machine learning models for analysis. The additional elements are cited at a high level of generality such that they are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. These additional elements also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are not patent-eligible.
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 1, 4-5, 10-12, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Shiralkar (US 2022/0124098 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Tian discloses a computer-implemented method, corresponding system, and corresponding computer program (see para. 0062, 0071-0073), for real-time, secure digital verification, executed by one or more processors, comprising:
instructing, via digital verification application executing on a user device, a user to provide personal data, the personal data including real-time location information captured from at least one sensor of the user device (see para. 0019-0022);
receiving behavior data about the user (see para. 0028);
verifying the user based on at least one of the personal data and the behavior data wherein the real-time location information is collected contemporaneously with a verification event (see para. 0028), including verifying that the location information is obtained within a predefined temporal window of a verification request (see para. 0059, wherein the limitation encompasses capturing sound during a particular time);
receiving a video or image captured by the user device during the predefined temporal window, the video or image including visual evidence associated with the user's physical location (see para. 0028, 0059);
verifying the location information by correlating (i) the real-time location information from the sensor with (ii) location data extracted from the video or image using image analysis (see para. 0028, 0059);
determining, whether to grant the user access to an asset (see para. 0018-0019), and
authorizing access to the asset (see para. 0018-0019);
Tian does not explicitly disclose, but Shiralkar teaches:
the behavior data comprising at least one of (i) a fraud risk score, (ii) a confidence score, or (iii) a behavioral deviation score generated by one or more machine-learning models trained on prior user activity (see para. 0015, 0021, 0038);
computing a composite risk score using at least location information and the behavior data, the composite risk score representing a quantified likelihood that the user is authorized (see para. 0015, 0021, 0038);
based on the composite risk score satisfying at least one threshold condition, dynamically determining an extent of partial access to the asset prior to full authorization based on the composite risk score (see para. 0030-0031);
authorizing access according to the dynamically determined extent of partial access (see para. 0030-0031).
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, and product of Tian to include the features of Shiralkar in order to provide flexible access (see Shiralkar, para. 0039).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Tian discloses wherein verifying the location information by correlating the real-time location information from the sensor with location data extracted from the video or image using image analysis comprises performing a reverse image search (see para. 0026-0027, 0052-0054, wherein “reverse image search” reasonably encompasses comparing visual features from the user-captured image against the stored image features).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Tian discloses wherein the real-time location information is determined through communications between the user device associated with the user and a base station using techniques including trilateration or triangulation, wherein the user device is a portable device that is capable of capture location information from multiple sites for verification (see para. 0070).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Shiralkar teaches wherein the one or more machine-learning models comprise artificial intelligence (AI) configured to perform AI-driven behavioral analysis to identify deviations associated with the user in user verification (see para. 0015, 0021, 0038).
Regarding claim 11, Shiralkar teaches providing a feedback mechanism in verifying the user, wherein the feedback mechanism is applied using one or more Al models (see para. 0038-0039).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Shiralkar (US 2022/0124098 A1), further in view of Flitcroft (US 2014/0122340 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Tian does not explicitly disclose, but Flitcroft teaches wherein the user is an applicant who is waiting for arrival of a physical card to access a requested asset, and wherein authorizing access to the asset according to the dynamically determined extent of partial access comprises making the partial access available to the user before the arrival of the physical card (see para. 0363).
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 and system of Tian to include the feature of Flitcroft to allow access to credit while mitigating risk with spending limits (see Flitcroft, para. 0363).
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Shiralkar (US 2022/0124098 A1), further in view of in view of Rawat (US 2017/0111364 A1, cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Tian does not explicitly disclose, but Rawat teaches wherein the personal data comprises one or more contact lists submitted by the user, and the method further comprises at least one of: examining whether the one or more contact lists include an empty list; or determining whether the one or more contact lists include a bad contact point (see para. 0054-0057).
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 and system of Tian to include the features taught by Rawat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to identify fraudulent accounts (see Rawat, para. 0054).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Tian does not explicitly disclose, but Rawat teaches comparing a number of bad contact points in the one or more contact lists with a threshold value; and calculating a ratio of the bad contact points for determining an extent of partial access to the asset (see Rawat, para. 0054-0057, wherein the system determines the number of good and bad connections, wherein the system necessarily performs a ratio-based evaluation because it computes both counts and determines a user’s status by comparing those values against thresholds).
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 and system of Tian to include the features taught by Rawat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to identify fraudulent accounts (see Rawat, para. 0054).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blikas (US 2024/0020879 A1) discloses systems and methods for establishing Proof of Location for a computing device (which may serve as Proof of Location for a user of the device). In some examples, establishing Proof of Location involves trackable features findable by the device at the location in question. In some examples, the computing device is configured to generate a point cloud of a trackable feature for comparison to a reference point cloud. Anti-spoofing methods are described for reducing the possibility of accidental or intentional false-positive Proof of Location results.
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 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