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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this instant application per original claims filed on 12/13/2024. Claims 1, 11 and 18 are independent claims reciting computer-implemented method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium claims. Claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are respective dependent claims.
The IDS filed on 12-13-2024 that has been considered and entered.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection on merits in response to its original claims of 13 DECEMBER 2024 that is titled: “Systems and Methods to Provide User Verification in a Shared User Environment via a Specific-Device Display”.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
Examiner notes the instant application is a CON of 18/323605 issued as US patent no. 12,205,102; which is a CON of 18/052041 issued as US patent no. 12,154,094; which is a CON of 17/570192 issued as US patent no. 11,699,144; which is a CON of 16/251890 issued as US patent no. 11,282,066; with its earliest priority date of 18 JANUARY 2019.
Double Patenting Rejection
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer (TD) must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer (TD) by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office Action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional, the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office Action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office Action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration, while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c), may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer (eTD) may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers (eTDs), refer to ---
www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,205,102; as well as Claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,154,094; as well as Claims 1-17 of US Patent No. 11,699,144; as well as Claims 1-17 of US Patent No. 11,282,066. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar limitations directed to: a method of generating a shared augmented reality payment authentication entry interface includes detecting a first consumer device and a second consumer device; prompting a display of a first augmented reality payment authentication interface at the first consumer device; and prompting a display of a second augmented reality payment authentication interface at the second consumer device. The instant claims are obvious combination of these same elements present in the above patents. However, certain language has been removed from the above issued Patents. Therefore, the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 11 and 18 are independent computer-implemented method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of: generating a display of an augmented reality interface, configured to display the augmented reality interface within an augmented reality environment; determining a mismatch between credential information received and stored credential information, a lower trust level between a plurality of users, or a surpassing of an amount threshold for an online transaction; and updating the augmented reality interface to increase a difficulty level by influencing a placement, a size, or a proximity of one or more visual elements within the augmented reality interface. In other words, the claim describes a procedure for electronic payment processing and, more particularly, to generating payment authentication entry interfaces for shared user environments (per Abstract). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: an augmented reality interface, one or more processors and a plurality of devices. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The processors, interfaces and devices in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements described above were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (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 it is here). Also, paras [0024], [0029]-[0030], [0039] and [0051]-[0053] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“ [0024] One example of the augmented reality display may refer to a scenario where multiple users are in the same physical space, e.g., a room. Upon receiving an indication that at least one of the users wishes to make a payment, a payment authentication interface may be generated at each user’s personal device. The indication that at least one user wishes to make a payment may be associated with a physical space (e.g., a location of a room as shown in FIG. 4A). For instance, if a group of friends wants to go to a gym class together, an augmented reality interface may appear on each person’s personal device as they approach the classroom. The interface may be shown through each user’s personal device as a unique augmented reality overlay on the room. The interface may be different on each user’s personal device. The payment authentication interface may prompt each respective user to enter payment prior to entering the classroom. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
[0029] Each consumer device may be associated with (or belong to) a different user. Further, each consumer device may be configured to provide an augmented reality interface. For example, consumer device 103a may provide an augmented reality interface 104a and consumer device 103n may provide an augmented reality interface 104n. Augmented reality interface 104a may show various characters for a user’s selection in a different visual arrangement from that of augmented reality interface 104n. Further, augmented reality interface 104a may receive a user’s input of a payment credential for consumer device 103a, and augmented reality interface 104n may receive its respective user’s input of a payment credential for consumer device 103n. The payment credential may include a PIN number or other secure code. ………………..
[0030] The display or creation of a payment authentication interface may be initiated by a merchant 105, authentication interface generator platform 109, augmented reality platform 111, or a combination thereof. The merchant 105 may operate at least one augmented reality terminal 107. (Terminal 107 may alternately be a virtual reality terminal.) Terminal 107 may be in contact with each consumer device 103a and consumer device 103n. In one embodiment, terminal 107 may provide or prompt the creation of augmented reality interface 104a at consumer device 103a, and augmented reality interface 104n at consumer device 103n. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0039] Any suitable system infrastructure may be put into place for generating randomized virtual reality payment authentication entry interfaces. FIGS. 1 and 2 and the discussion above provide a brief, general description of a suitable computing environment in which the present disclosure may be implemented. In one embodiment, any of the disclosed systems, methods, and/or graphical user interfaces may be executed by or implemented by a computing system consistent with or similar to that depicted in FIGS. 1 and 2. Although not required, aspects of the present disclosure are described in the context of computer-executable instructions, such as routines executed by a data processing device, e.g., a server computer, wireless device, and/or personal computer. Those skilled in the relevant art will appreciate that aspects of the present disclosure can be practiced with other communications, data processing, or computer system configurations, including: Internet appliances, hand-held devices (including personal digital assistants (“PDAs”)), wearable computers, all manner of cellular or mobile phones, media players, gaming devices, virtual reality devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, set-top boxes, network PCs, mini-computers, mainframe computers, and the like. Indeed, the terms “computer,” “server,” and the like, are generally used interchangeably herein, and refer to any of the above devices and systems, as well as any data processor. …………………………………………………………………………………………………
[0051] The systems and processes described above may be performed on or between one or more computing devices, e.g. configuration service. FIG. 5 illustrates an example computing device. A computing device 500 may be a server, a computing device that is integrated with other systems or subsystems, a mobile computing device such as a smart phone, a cloud-based computing ability, and so forth. The computing device 500 may be any suitable computing device as would be understood in the art, including without limitation, a custom chip, and embedded processing device, a tablet computing device, a back-office system of a merchant 105, a personal data assistant (PDA), a desktop, laptop, microcomputer, and minicomputer, a server, a mainframe, or any other suitable programmable device. In various embodiments disclosed herein, a single component may be replaced by multiple components and multiple components may be replaced by single component to perform a given function or functions. Except where such substitution would not be operative, such substitution is within the intended scope of the embodiments. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0052] The computing device 500 may include a processor 510 that may be any suitable type of processing unit, for example a general-purpose central processing unit (CPU), a reduced instruction set computer (RISC), a processor that has a pipeline or multiple processing capability including having multiple cores, a complex instruction set computer (CISC), a digital signal processor (DSP), application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), a programmable logic devices (PLD), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA), among others. The computing resources may also include distributed computing devices, cloud computing resources, and virtual computing resources in general. ……………………………………………………………………………………
[0053] The computing device 500 may also include one or more memories 530, for example read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), cache memory associated with the processor 510, or other memory such as dynamic RAM (DRAM), static RAM (SRAM), programmable ROM (PROM), electrically erasable PROM (EEPROM), flash memory, a removable memory card or disc, a solid-state drive, and so forth. The computing device 500 also includes storage media such as a storage device that may be configured to have multiple modules, such as magnetic disk drives, floppy drives, tape drives, hard drives, optical drives and media, magneto-optical drives and media, compact disk drives, Compact Disc Read Only Memory (CD- ROM), compact disc recordable (CD-R), Compact Disk Rewritable (CD-RW), a suitable type of Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) or BluRay disc, and so forth. Storage media such as flash drives, solid-state hard drives, redundant array of individual discs (RAID), virtual drives, networked drives and other memory means including storage media on the processor 510, or memories 530 are also contemplated as storage devices. It may be appreciated that such memory may be internal or external with respect to operation of the disclosed embodiments. It may be appreciated that certain portions of the processes described herein may be performed using instructions stored on a computer readable medium or media that direct computer system to perform the process steps. Non-transitory computable-readable media, as used herein, comprises all computer-readable media except for transitory, propagating signals.”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 11 and independent non-transitory computer readable medium Claim 18, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-10, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., changing, by the one or more processors, an overlay of the augmented reality interface upon selection of at least one visual elements by the plurality of users associated with the plurality of devices; randomizing, by the one or more processors, the placement of the one or more visual elements in the augmented reality interface; applying, by the one or more processors, animations to the one or more visual elements to dynamically move the one or more visual elements within the augmented reality environment; reducing, by the one or more processors, the size of the one or more visual elements within the augmented reality interface; increasing, by the one or more processors, a distance between the one or more visual elements within the augmented reality interface; increasing, by the one or more processors, a frequency of changing the placement of the one or more visual elements within the augmented reality interface; concealing, by the one or more processors, the one or more visual elements in one or more occluded spaces of the augmented reality environment; determining, by the one or more processors, the plurality of devices are within a shared environment, wherein a distance between the plurality of devices is within a proximity threshold; wherein arrangements of the one or more visual elements in the augmented reality interface are different for each of the plurality of devices; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent system Claims 12-17 and dependent non-transitory computer readable medium Claims 19-20 also further narrow their independent Claims 11 and 18 respectively, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights