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 03/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 05/05/2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16, and 18 – 20 remain as original.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 02/06/2026 as to claims 1, 6 – 9, and 14 – 17 are maintained 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.
Applicant argues in essence pursuant to 35 USC 103 that the primary citation in the prior non-final rejection, Caldera, does not adequately cover a “virtual” environment. Remarks 7 – 9. That said, and while examiner respectfully disagrees with the above, (see last non-final rejection), examiner, in an abundance of caution, has now relocated this particular passage (regarding a virtual environment) to be mapped by the secondary, Vishal, whose transactions are clearly made within a virtual environment. See 35 USC 103 analysis below.
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 02/06/2026, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 05/05/2026, as seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6 – 9, and 14 – 17 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Caldera (US20190122149A1) in view of Vishal (US20170364920A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17:
Caldera discloses:
A system comprising: at least one processor programmed or configured to:
identify a pseudo-identity in a virtual environment,
In light of the disclosure, the claim term “virtual” is neither defined nor otherwise distinguished from its normal usage, which here is taken by examiner to include the meaning that the word “virtual” preceding any other claimed thing (“environment”, “bank”, “payment device”, see claims herein) denotes that said thing does not necessarily physically exist, that said … (“In FIG. 2, the device (120) includes memory (160) storing software (161), at least one network interface (143) to communicate via a network (100), one or more microprocessors (145) to execute the software (161) stored in the memory (160).”, [055]) and (“The anonymous network (231) and pseudonymous network (233) generally provide enhanced privacy protections for their users by allowing various degrees of anonymity in activities on their network.”, [099]) and (“Further, in some computer systems, authentication credentials may not be connected to the real identities of the users as known in the society. In some systems, the lack of association between the authentication credentials and the real user identities is intentional to allow anonymous access and/or pseudonymous access.”, [008]);
the pseudo-identity score based on a plurality of parameters including a measure of activity of the pseudo-identity in the virtual environment; (“Scoring is accumulated based on whether the new data elements match the data elements of the original graph. Data elements may include, but are not limited to, examples such as these: Payment method—same name of person? Social security number associated with payment method—same number? Same billing address? Same shipping address? Many factors may be considered, depending on availability of data. Note that each sublist 1-n may contain a different number of data elements, but the score per element may be the same.”, [0305]) and (“The anonymous network (231) and pseudonymous network (233) generally provide enhanced privacy protections for their users by allowing various degrees of anonymity in activities on their network,”, [099]) and (“n FIG. 3, the site (110) includes at least one network interface (143) to communicate via the network (100), one or more microprocessors (145) to execute instructions of software configured for user authentication and/or access control,”, [065]), … scoring is based on past user measured activity;
issue the virtual payment device to the pseudo-identity, in the virtual environment Examiner interprets this limitation broadly to include the meaning that the pseudo-entity is now authorized to make a payment inuring from the paying entity using the virtual device … (“For example, the access may allow the user to run an application, consume information/data, transmit a message to another user, make an asset exchange/trade, and/or make or receive a payment, etc.”, [046]) and (“The peer to peer network may be configured to allow anonymous access and/or pseudonymous access. Through correlation/connection of data elements of contextual information of accesses made on the anonymous/pseudonymous network(s) and respective data elements of contextual information of accesses made on other networks, the user authentication capability of the controller (101) can be improved.”, [052]);
the virtual payment device configured to transact with merchants in the virtual environment; and (“For example, the user device (120) may access the computing site (110) using an access token to sign in the computing site (110), send a message to another user or make an exchange with another user via the computing site (110), or make a payment transaction with the merchant operating the computing site (110) using an account or a payment instrument.”, [0179]);
Caldera does not expressly disclose, but Vishal teaches:
comprisinq a virtual reality environment or augmented reality environment, the pseudo- identity controlled by a user within the virtual environment; (“One embodiment of the invention is directed to a computer-implemented method comprising, receiving an indication that an avatar of a user has initiated a transaction in a virtual reality environment. The method further comprises obtaining a first biometric sample from the user interacting with the virtual reality hardware. The method further comprises generating a partial biometric template based at least in part on the first biometric sample. The method further comprises providing the partial biometric template and personal authentication information for the avatar to an authentication computer where the personal authentication information and the partial biometric template are used to authenticate the avatar.”, [Abstract, published 12/21/2017]);
receive a request for a virtual payment device via an interaction between the pseudo-identity and a virtual bank in the virtual environment; (“The virtual reality hardware 104 may include a processor, memory, input/output devices, and a computer readable medium coupled to the processor.”, [062]) and (“An “authorization response message” may be a message that responds to an authorization request. In some cases, it may be an electronic message reply to an authorization request message generated by an issuing financial institution or a transaction processing computer. The authorization response message may include, by way of example only, one or more of the following status indicators: Approval—transaction was approved; Decline—transaction was not approved; or Call Center—response pending more information, … The authorization response message may also include an authorization code, which may be a code that a credit card issuing bank returns in response to an authorization request message in an electronic message (either directly or through the transaction processing computer) to the merchant's access device (e.g. POS equipment) that indicates approval of the transaction. The code may serve as proof of authorization.”, [050]) and (“In some embodiments, receiving the indication that the avatar of the user has initiated the transaction in the virtual reality environment includes presentation by the avatar of a unique identifier to a resource provider in the virtual reality environment. In some embodiments, the unique identifier includes a barcode or a representation of an access device in the virtual reality environment.”, [010]);
determine, with a pseudo-identity service, a pseudo-identity score for the pseudo-identity based on a query from the virtual bank, (“The authentication service may utilize risk profiles compiled from previous comparisons of incomplete sets of eigenvalues from a plurality of transactions to identify the risk of a current transaction before authenticating the transaction.”, [025]) and (“The machine learning algorithm may utilize the submitted samples and maintained templates to generate a risk score that can be compared to a threshold value for determining whether to authenticate the transaction. Multiple variations of comparing the risk score to the threshold values may be suitable for determining authentication of a user for the transaction in the current disclosure. For example, a transaction may be determined to be authenticated if the risk score exceeds the threshold, exceeds the threshold by a certain amount, is within a certain range of the threshold, etc.”, [058]) and (“In some embodiments, the process 400 may include the resource provider computer 110 providing a prompt or request to the virtual reality hardware 104 that queries the avatar of the user within the virtual reality environment to confirm the transaction at 432 in response to receiving the authorization response message.”, [085]);
process a transaction within the virtual environment between the pseudo-identity and a merchant in the virtual environment using the virtual payment device. (“In some embodiments, the computer-implemented method further comprises providing a transaction code to the avatar of the user to complete the transaction in response to providing the authentication response message to the resource provider.”, [009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Caldera to incorporate the teachings of Vishal because Caldera would be more efficient and secure should it use risk scores to help determine the likelihood of whether a transaction was proper as done in Vishal ("The machine learning algorithm may utilize the submitted samples and maintained templates to generate a risk score that can be compared to a threshold value for determining whether to authenticate the transaction. Multiple variations of comparing the risk score to the threshold values may be suitable for determining authentication of a user for the transaction in the current disclosure.”, see [058]) of Vishal.
Regarding claims 6 and 14:
The combination of Caldera and Vishal discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, Vishal further teaches:
wherein the virtual payment device is linked to a physical payment device. (“Users conducting transactions may be subject to certain security vulnerabilities such as the sharing and proliferation of personal information and/or financial information such as credit card numbers or bank account information.”, [002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Caldera to incorporate the teachings of Vishal because Caldera would be more efficient and secure should it use risk scores to help determine the likelihood of whether a transaction was proper as done in Vishal ("The machine learning algorithm may utilize the submitted samples and maintained templates to generate a risk score that can be compared to a threshold value for determining whether to authenticate the transaction. Multiple variations of comparing the risk score to the threshold values may be suitable for determining authentication of a user for the transaction in the current disclosure.”, see [058]) of Vishal.
Regarding claims 7 and 15:
The combination of Caldera and Vishal discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, Vishal further teaches:
wherein the virtual payment device is a wallet associated with a cryptocurrency balance. (“In some embodiments, an access credential may include payment account information or a token associated with the payment account information, a cryptogram, a digital certificate, etc. A “transaction code” may be an example of an access credential.”, [040) and (“Other information may be provided during the enrollment process to the authentication computer 114 such as account information, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, digital wallet references, other suitable information such as personal authentication information,”, [057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Caldera to incorporate the teachings of Vishal because Caldera would be more efficient and secure should it use risk scores to help determine the likelihood of whether a transaction was proper as done in Vishal ("The machine learning algorithm may utilize the submitted samples and maintained templates to generate a risk score that can be compared to a threshold value for determining whether to authenticate the transaction. Multiple variations of comparing the risk score to the threshold values may be suitable for determining authentication of a user for the transaction in the current disclosure.”, see [058]) of Vishal.
Regarding claims 8 and 16:
The combination of Caldera and Vishal discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, Caldera further teaches:
wherein the virtual payment device is issued to the pseudo-identity in response to the pseudo-identity score satisfying a threshold. (“For example, the access may allow the user to run an application, consume information/data, transmit a message to another user, make an asset exchange/trade, and/or make or receive a payment, etc.”, [046]) and (“The peer to peer network may be configured to allow anonymous access and/or pseudonymous access. Through correlation/connection of data elements of contextual information of accesses made on the anonymous/pseudonymous network(s) and respective data elements of contextual information of accesses made on other networks, the user authentication capability of the controller (101) can be improved.”, [052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 5, 10 – 13, and 18 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to be in an independent claim form. 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.
Nandakumar (US10819503B2) - An example operation may include one or more of joining, by a host device, a blockchain managed by one or more devices on a decentralized network, the blockchain is configured to use one or more smart contracts that specify transactions among a plurality of end-users, creating on the blockchain the smart contract defining authentication parameters for an authentication of an end-user from the plurality of the end-users, executing the smart contract to perform the authentication of the end-user associated with a transaction based on the authentication parameters by generating an authentication challenge for the transaction, and recording an authentication log produced by the authentication challenge into a metadata of a transaction payload for analytics.
Castagna (US11146535B2) – Embodiments of the present invention provide a system for expediting validation and authorization of transactions between end points. Embodiments of the invention utilize a private blockchain to control transaction workflow amongst compute nodes, provide automatic authorization of transactions in the workflow, and provide efficient record-keeping functions within the virtual ledgers in an upstream and a downstream application. By using a private distributed ledger in this manner, the system addresses the computer networking-centric challenge of processing transactions in a secure and efficient manner; avoiding desynchronization of data as well as preventing the need for authorization and confirmation requests amongst the nodes greatly reduces the amount of computing resources required to process transactions, including, but not limited to, processing power, memory space, storage space, cache space, electric power, networking bandwidth, and I/O calls.
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