DETAILED ACTION
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 2 - 21 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
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.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
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.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 2 - 21 is/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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 2, is/are directed to a process (i.e. a method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves authenticating a user using a first authentication method;
determining an initial token level to be associated with the user and sending an authorization token having the initial token level associated with the user; receiving a first request to withdraw funds using a cardless automatic teller machine (ATM) system, the first request including the authorization token; determining a required token level to complete withdrawal of the funds; in response to determining that the required token level is greater than the initial token level, determining a secondary authentication method needed to complete the withdrawal of the funds based on the initial token level and a risk tier for the withdrawal of the funds; authenticating the user using the secondary authentication method; determining an elevated token level based on the secondary authentication method and issuing an updated authorization token indicating the elevated token level; receiving a second request to complete the withdrawal of the funds, the second request comprising: the updated authorization token, and an identifier associated with an ATM, the identifier having been encoded in a matrixed identifier displayed on the ATM; and causing to dispense the funds to the user in response to the second request, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (authenticating a user; dispensing funds to the user); commercial or legal (authenticating a user; dispensing funds to the user); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (authenticating, determining, sending, receiving, issuing, causing to dispense).
The mere nominal recitation of “one or more processors” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to authenticating a user using a first authentication method; determining an initial token level to be associated with the user and sending an authorization token having the initial token level associated with the user; receiving a first request to withdraw funds using a cardless automatic teller machine (ATM) system, the first request including the authorization token; determining a required token level to complete withdrawal of the funds; in response to determining that the required token level is greater than the initial token level, determining a secondary authentication method needed to complete the withdrawal of the funds based on the initial token level and a risk tier for the withdrawal of the funds; authenticating the user using the secondary authentication method; determining an elevated token level based on the secondary authentication method and issuing an updated authorization token indicating the elevated token level; receiving a second request to complete the withdrawal of the funds, the second request comprising: the updated authorization token, and an identifier associated with an ATM, the identifier having been encoded in a matrixed identifier displayed on the ATM; and causing to dispense the funds to the user in response to the second request.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, the claim encompasses the user manually authenticating a user using a first authentication method; determining an initial token level to be associated with the user and sending an authorization token having the initial token level associated with the user; receiving a first request to withdraw funds using a cardless automatic teller machine (ATM) system, the first request including the authorization token; determining a required token level to complete withdrawal of the funds; in response to determining that the required token level is greater than the initial token level, determining a secondary authentication method needed to complete the withdrawal of the funds based on the initial token level and a risk tier for the withdrawal of the funds; authenticating the user using the secondary authentication method; determining an elevated token level based on the secondary authentication method and issuing an updated authorization token indicating the elevated token level; receiving a second request to complete the withdrawal of the funds, the second request comprising: the updated authorization token, and an identifier associated with an ATM, the identifier having been encoded in a matrixed identifier displayed on the ATM; and causing to dispense the funds to the user in response to the second request.
The mere nominal recitation of “one or more processors” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “one or more processors” performing one of the positively recited steps or acts (i.e., “authenticating”). The claim recites the combination of additional elements of interacting with a “mobile device” (i.e., “sending ….. to a mobile device”; “receiving from the mobile device”; “issuing to the mobile device”). The claim recites the combination of additional elements of interacting with a “ATM” (i.e., “causing the ATM to”). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of (a) data processing (e.g., “authenticating”, “determining”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “sending”, “receiving”, “issuing”, “causing ….. to dispense”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering request data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of the “one or more processors”. (b) Although a “mobile device” is referenced in the claim, the claimed invention is not from the perspective of a “mobile device” and a “mobile device” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. (c) Although a “ATM” is referenced in the claim, the claimed invention is not from the perspective of a “ATM” and a “ATM” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 12/02/24 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Thomas, US Pat. No. 11,308,481; Golan, US Pub. No. 2005/0097320; Castinado, US Pat. No. 9,554,274; Alnajem, US Pub. No. 2017/0300911; O’Cuilinn, US Pub. No. 2018/0165679; and DeLuca, US Pub. No. 2015/0287028 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data processing (e.g., “authenticating”, “determining”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “sending”, “receiving”, “issuing”, “causing ….. to dispense”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data processing (e.g., “authenticating”, “determining”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “sending”, “receiving”, “issuing”, “causing ….. to dispense”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 3 - 8 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent system claim 9 and independent one or more non-transitory computer-readable device claim 16 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The component(s) (e.g., “memory”, “at least one processor”) described in independent system claim 9 and the component(s) (e.g., “non-transitory computer-readable device”, “at least one computing device”) described in independent non-transitory computer-readable device claim 16, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product(s) (system, non-transitory computer-readable device) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 - 15 and 17 - 21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record includes Thomas, US Pat. No. 11,308,481; Golan, US Pub. No. 2005/0097320; Castinado, US Pat. No. 9,554,274; Alnajem, US Pub. No. 2017/0300911; O’Cuilinn, US Pub. No. 2018/0165679; and DeLuca, US Pub. No. 2015/0287028.
Thomas is relevant because it discloses an automated teller machine (ATM) (akin to “automatic teller machine (ATM) system” as claimed) authentication that involves engagement with/ aide from a mobile device of a user (akin to “a mobile device associated with the user” as claimed). Thomas further discloses that the user may access the ATM to complete a variety of transactions (e.g., withdrawing funds) (akin to “withdraw funds”, “dispense funds”, etc. as claimed). Thomas further discloses the authentication information received by the ATM from the mobile device may include an image (e.g., a quick response (QR) code or other machine-readable code) (akin to “matrixed identifier” as claimed). Thomas does not describe authentication levels or tiered authentication. When Thomas describes a “higher level”, it is describing the greater security and capabilities contemplated relative to conventional ATM card based authentication. Golan, Castinado, Alnajem, O’Cuilinn and DeLuca are relevant to the concept of authentication levels or tiered authentication, but none describe the concept of authentication levels or tiered authentication with the specificity as claimed.
Although these references are similar to the claimed invention in some respects, alone or in combination, they fail to explicitly disclose all the limitations required of the claimed invention such as “determining an elevated token level based on the secondary authentication method and issuing to the mobile device an updated authorization token indicating the elevated token level ; receiving from the mobile device a second request to complete the withdrawal of the funds, the second request comprising: the updated authorization token, and an identifier associated with an ATM, the identifier having been encoded in a matrixed identifier displayed on the ATM”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to authenticating a customer and/ or risk level with respect authentication.
US 20210133710 A1
US 20210051015 A1
US 20210042727 A1
US 20210027295 A1
US 20190130094 A1
US 20190005474 A1
US 20120173311 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695