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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “encodes the interactive element” in line 3, appears should be written “encode the encrypted information.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of score” in line 3, appears should be written “the plurality of scores.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 2 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claims 2 recites a method of multi-factor authentication, the method comprising: determining, as a first factor of authentication, and based on first location data from a first user device and second location data from a second user device, that the first user device and the second user device are within a threshold distance of one another; generating a customized interactive element; providing the customized interactive element to the first user device in response to the first factor of authentication; identifying, as a second factor of authentication, that the second user device has interacted with the customized interactive element as provided to the first user device; and facilitating a transaction between a first account and a second account based on the first factor of authentication and the second factor of authentication, wherein the first account is associated with the first user device, and wherein the second account is associated with the second user device. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk (Specification, para. 22 & 26). The claims are also commercial interactions, such as business relations, as well as managing interactions between people, such as following instruction. Lastly, the claims are a mental process, as they are capable of being performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. 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 above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a first and second user device, and customized interactive element. The additional elements of a first and second user device, and customized interactive element, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of first and second graphical user interfaces are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations 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 of (a first and second user device, and customized interactive element) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. 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 limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 3 recites, wherein the customized interactive element includes an optical glyph that optically encodes information, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the customized interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has decoded the information from the optical glyph in response to a scan of the optical glyph using an optical sensor. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2, and the additional elements of customized interactive element, optical glyph, second user device, and optical sensor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 2 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Claim 4 recites, wherein the first location data is associated with a first positioning receiver of the first user device, and wherein the second location data is associated with a second positioning receiver of the second user device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2, and the additional elements of first positioning receiver, second positioning receiver, first and second user device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 2 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Claim 5 recites, wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are within the threshold distance of one another includes determining that the first user device and the second user device are within communication range of one another using a short-range wireless communication interface based on conveyance of at least one communication between the first user device and the second user device over the short-range wireless communication interface, wherein the first location data and the second location data are associated with the at least one communication. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2, and the additional elements of first and second user device, one communication, and short-range wireless communication interface are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 2 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 6 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 23 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 6 and 23 recites a method of multi-factor authentication, the method comprising: determining, as a first factor of authentication, and based on first context data from a first user device and second context data from a second user device, that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another; providing an interactive element to the first user device; identifying, as a second factor of authentication, that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element as provided to the first user device; and facilitating a transaction between a first account and a second account based on the first factor of authentication and the second factor of authentication, wherein the first account is associated with the first user device, and wherein the second account is associated with the second user device. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk (Specification, para. 22 & 26). The claims are also commercial interactions, such as business relations, as well as managing interactions between people, such as following instruction. Lastly, the claims are a mental process, as they are capable of being performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. 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 above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system processors, memory, user device, and first and second graphical user interfaces. The additional elements of a system, processor, memory and user device, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of first and second graphical user interfaces are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations 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 of (system, processors, memory, user device, and first and second graphical user interfaces) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. 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 limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 7 recites, wherein the interactive element includes an optical glyph that optically encodes information, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has decoded the information from the optical glyph in response to a scan of the optical glyph using an optical sensor. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of customized interactive element, optical glyph, second user device, and optical sensor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 8 recites, wherein the interactive element includes information associated with a short-range wireless communication interface, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has received the information from the first user device wirelessly using the short-range wireless communication interface. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of interactive element, short-range wireless communication interface first and second user device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 9 recites, wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another includes determining that the first user device and the second user device are within a threshold distance of one another, wherein the first context data includes first location data associated with a first positioning receiver of the first user device, and wherein the second context data includes second location data associated with a second positioning receiver of the second user device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of first and second user device, first positioning receiver, second positioning receiver are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 10 recites, wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another includes determining that the first user device and the second user device are within communication range of one another using a short- range wireless communication interface based on conveyance of at least one communication between the first user device and the second user device over the short-range wireless communication interface, wherein the first context data and the second context data are associated with the at least one communication. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of communication, first and second user device, short-range wireless communication interface are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 11 recites, wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another includes identifying a relationship between the first user and the second user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of first and second user device first and second user device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 12 recites, wherein the transaction involves an exchange of a first asset for a second asset, wherein the first asset and the second asset are of different asset types from a plurality of asset types, and wherein the plurality of asset types include fiat currency, non-fiat currency, cryptocurrency, stocks, bonds, or non-fungible tokens. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 13 recites, further comprising: encrypting information to generate encrypted information; and generating the interactive element, wherein the interactive element encodes the interactive element, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has decrypted the encrypted information. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of interactive element, and second user device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 14 recites, wherein the interactive element encodes a link to a network resource, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has accessed the network resource. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of interactive element, link, second user device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 15 recites, wherein the interactive element is customized with a unique verification dataset to be used for the second factor of authentication, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has access to the unique verification dataset. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of interactive element, and second user device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 16 recites, wherein facilitating the transaction between the first account and the second account includes facilitating a transfer of a digital asset between the first account and the second account using a distributed ledger. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of a digital asset and distributed ledger are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 17 recites, wherein providing the interactive element to the first user device includes automatically providing the interactive element to the first user device in response to the first factor of authentication. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of interactive element and first user device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 18 recites, further comprising: determining, as a third factor of authentication, and based on additional first context data from the first user device and additional second context data from the second user device, that the first user device and the second user device are within a second threshold distance of one another, wherein the second threshold distance is shorter than the threshold distance, and wherein facilitating the transaction is based on the first factor of authentication, the second factor of authentication, and the third factor of authentication. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of first user device and second user device are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 19 recites, wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element within a threshold amount of time since the providing of the interactive element to the first user device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of second user device, first user device and interactive element are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 20 recites, further comprising: causing the first user device to display a map in response to the first factor of authentication, wherein the map includes a first location associated with the first user device and a second location associated with the second user device. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of first user device, second user device, display a map, first location and second location are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 21 recites, further comprising: generating a plurality of scores corresponding to a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users includes the second user; causing the first user device to display a ranked list of the plurality of users through a user interface; and selecting the second user from the plurality of users for the transaction based on receipt of a selection input through the user interface. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of display a ranked list of the plurality of users through a user interface and selection input through the user interface are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 6 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
Claim 22 recites, further comprising: generating a plurality of scores corresponding to a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users includes the second user; and automatically selecting the second user from the plurality of users for the transaction based on the first factor of authentication and a ranking of the plurality of score. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 6, supra.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674.
Regarding claim 2, a method of multi-factor authentication, the method comprising:
determining, as a first factor of authentication, and based on first location data from a first user device and second location data from a second user device, that the first user device and the second user device are within a threshold distance of one another (Cell phone uses triangulation to authenticate and facilitate transactions between accounts and cel phones 102 and 105; Col. 2, Lines 40-67; Fig. 2, Steps 202-210);
and facilitating a transaction between a first account and a second account based on the first factor of authentication and the second factor of authentication, wherein the first account is associated with the first user device, and wherein the second account is associated with the second user device (Approve transaction if devices are within a threshold distance (Col. 5, Lines 10-30; Col. 6, Lines 40-60).
Ashfield fails to disclose generating a customized interactive element. However, Flurschiem discloses generating and providing a customized QR code with transaction and random number to a device after initial checks (QR code Fig. 1, with mobile application 272).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the customized interactive element of Flurschiem. Doing so allows for faster payments and greater security with the transaction.
Ashfield also fails to disclose providing the customized interactive element to the first user device in response to the first factor of authentication. However, Flurschiem discloses a mobile application with secure element 280 that provides a QR generator 276 with QR reader module 274 and cryptogram generation module 278 (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the customized interactive element and authentication of Flurschiem. Doing so allows for faster payments and greater security with the transaction.
Ashfield also fails to disclose identifying, as a second factor of authentication, that the second user device has interacted with the customized interactive element as provided to the first user device. However, Flurschiem discloses a point-of-sale device 120 that interacts with the user device 110, with 120 acting as a mobile phone (Para. 49-50), as the user scans with 830 of 810 for the authentication (See also different levels of authentication for first user, Fig. 7 with first and second levels of data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the second factor of authentication of Flurschiem. Doing so allows for faster payments and greater security with the transaction.
Regarding claims 6 and 23, Ashfield discloses a method of multi-factor authentication, the method comprising:
determining, as a first factor of authentication, and based on first context data from a first user device and second context data from a second user device, that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another (Ashfield, Cell phone uses triangulation to authenticate and facilitate transactions between accounts and cell phones 102 and 105; Cell phone are context data between accounts; Col. 2, Lines 40-67; Fig. 2, Steps 202-210; 102 and 105 are associated through a transaction);
Ashfield fails to disclose providing an interactive element to the first user device. However, Flurschiem discloses generating and providing a customized QR code with transaction and random number to a device after initial checks (QR code Fig. 1, with mobile application 272).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the customized interactive element of Flurschiem. Doing so allows for faster payments and greater security with the transaction.
Ashfield also fails to disclose identifying, as a second factor of authentication, that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element as provided to the first user device. However, Flurschiem discloses a point-of-sale device 120 that interacts with the user device 110, with 120 acting as a mobile phone (Para. 49-50), as the user scans with 830 of 810 for the authentication (See also different levels of authentication for first user, Fig. 7 with first and second levels of data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the second factor of authentication of Flurschiem. Doing so allows for faster payments and greater security with the transaction.
Ashfield also discloses facilitating a transaction between a first account and a second account based on the first factor of authentication and the second factor of authentication, wherein the first account is associated with the first user device, and wherein the second account is associated with the second user device (Ashfield, Approve transaction if devices are within a threshold distance (Col. 5, Lines 10-30; Col. 6, Lines 40-60).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Ashfield fails to disclose wherein the customized interactive element includes an optical glyph that optically encodes information, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the customized interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has decoded the information from the optical glyph in response to a scan of the optical glyph using an optical sensor. However, Flurschiem discloses a data encoded cryptogram with a transaction amount, merchant identifier, etc (Para. 5; Claim 2), with two way communication (Para. 27), and the user device decoding the random number (Para. 5) that was originally encoded in the scanned QR Code via application 272 (Para. 76 & Para. 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the optical glyph of Flurschiem. Doing so allows the devices to interact, and increases security as the information is encoded and decoded.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ashfield discloses wherein the first location data is associated with a first positioning receiver of the first user device, and wherein the second location data is associated with a second positioning receiver of the second user device (Ashfield, GPS positioning data and locators on each mobile device).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ashfield discloses wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are within the threshold distance of one another includes determining that the first user device and the second user device are within communication range of one another using a short-range wireless communication interface based on conveyance of at least one communication between the first user device and the second user device over the short-range wireless communication interface, wherein the first location data and the second location data are associated with the at least one communication (Col. 4, Lines 52-64, discussing WLAN technology with capable cell towers for a local area with WLAN; “For instance, many cellular telephones now include not only wireless communication capability with standard cell towers, but also wireless communication capability with wireless local area networks (WLANs) such as IEEE 802.11 standard wireless networks. Thus, if the client mobile device is connected to a particular WLAN, and if the location of that WLAN is known, then the location of the client mobile device may also be determined based on which WLAN it is connected to, such as via internet service provider 103”; “ Mobile device locator 203 may include equipment for actually locating client mobile devices, or it may include one or more communication interfaces for sending requests and in response to those requests receiving data representing the locations of the requested client mobile devices. This data may include, for instance, GPS positioning data, cell tower signal strength/triangulation data, and/or wireless IP geolocation data”)
Regarding claim 9, modified Ashfield discloses wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another includes determining that the first user device and the second user device are within a threshold distance of one another (Step 406, decision engine compares locations of client mobile device, Col. 8, Lines 50-64), wherein the first context data includes first location data associated with a first positioning receiver of the first user device, and wherein the second context data includes second location data associated with a second positioning receiver of the second user device (Devices 101, 102 and 105 may possess GPS data which is a positioning receiver).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ashfield discloses wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another includes identifying a relationship between the first user and the second user (Ashfield, “To determine the location of client computing device 101, bank system 104 may determine the IP address of client computing device 101 and cross reference the IP address to a database of one or more IP addresses each mapped to a geographical location. For example, a first IP address may be associated with a first city, while a second different IP address may be associated with a second different city. This process is well known and is commonly referred to as IP geolocation. There are many service providers today that offer IP geolocation services. Thus, bank system 104 may have access to such an IP geolocation service. Alternatively, bank system 104 may provide its own homegrown IP geolocation service”; “To determine which mobile devices are relevant for proximity determination, a computer-readable medium, which may be organized as a relational database, may store data representing a plurality of users (e.g., bank customers) and their associated client mobile devices”; Bank can use relational database to determine that both user A and user B are customers and in “relationship” with the bank).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ashfield discloses wherein providing the interactive element to the first user device includes automatically providing the interactive element to the first user device in response to the first factor of authentication (Flurschiem, discloses generating and providing a customized QR code with transaction and random number to a device after initial checks; QR code Fig. 1, with mobile application 272).
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Xia US 10657242.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ashfield fails to disclose wherein the interactive element includes information associated with a short-range wireless communication interface, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has received the information from the first user device wirelessly using the short-range wireless communication interface. However, Xia discloses a two-user device interaction for proximity-based access where in step 304 resource computer 120 outputs a security code which can be a QR code, and is outputted through NFC signal where mobile device 110 receives the security code that was output by 120 (Fig. 1, and 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the QR code output through NFC signal of Xia. Doing so allows user devices in close proximity to communicate through signal and confirm authentication, while increasing security measures for authentication.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ashfield fails to disclose wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another includes determining that the first user device and the second user device are within communication range of one another using a short- range wireless communication interface based on conveyance of at least one communication between the first user device and the second user device over the short-range wireless communication interface, wherein the first context data and the second context data are associated with the at least one communication. However, Xia discloses that user devices can be “paired” with one another through Bluetooth (Col. 11, Lines 15-20; as well as Col. 11, Lines 36-40) on the short-range wireless communication channel (105, Fig. 1 and 2B) with access information passing between 110 and 120 through server 130 (such as 210 to 220 and 230 back to 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the communication range and context data being able to be shared between user devices. Doing so allows for greater efficiency between user devices once paired through Bluetooth as well as information sharing between the devices.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ashfield fails to disclose encrypting information to generate encrypted information; and generating the interactive element, wherein the interactive element encodes the interactive element, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has decrypted the encrypted information. However, Xia discloses a QR code used for encrypting information (step 304) with the QR encrypting information, and granting access to the computing device to enable access to the computing device once the public private key share is in agreement, with device 120 decrypting the password received from 110 using a specific private encryption key in connection with paring to 110 (Col. 19, Lines 34-44; With access being granted once the correct password, 120 provides access to user 102; Col. 20, Lines 19-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the decryption access of Xia. Doing so adds grater security to the system, and gives the user ease of use once entering the correct public-private key exchange.
Claim(s) 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Minor US 20150332256.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ashfield fails to disclose wherein the transaction involves an exchange of a first asset for a second asset, wherein the first asset and the second asset are of different asset types from a plurality of asset types, and wherein the plurality of asset types include fiat currency, non-fiat currency, cryptocurrency, stocks, bonds, or non-fungible tokens. However, Minor discloses different user devices (102 and 103) with a computer-based system that converts cryptocurrency into a virtual asset upon exchange (Claim 5, debit and credit first user and second users account based on the exchange).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the exchange between cryptocurrency and fiat of Minor. Doing so increases transaction ability between devices, and allows more transactions to take place, increasing efficiency and profitability.
Regarding claim 16, modified Ashfield fails to disclose wherein facilitating the transaction between the first account and the second account includes facilitating a transfer of a digital asset between the first account and the second account using a distributed ledger. However, Minor discloses the ability of users to transfer assets during a transaction (Fig. 2, user A and B transacting using both bitcoin and fiat currency) in a cryptocurrency or public ledger system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the distributed ledger for currency exchange between bitcoin and fiat. Doing so enhances the system to allow multiple different types of transactions between different currencies, as well as account for transactions to the blockchain.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Shi US 20130167208.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ashfield fails to disclose wherein the interactive element encodes a link to a network resource, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has accessed the network resource. However, Shi discloses a website login window in conjunction with a user device 102 with a link such as a URL (Para. 19), and a user may enter a URL address of the website or may clock the link to the website (Para. 20) with a linked account to the device ID, and server 108 may retrieve information linked to the device ID once the URL is utilized (Para. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the URL encrypted as a link for a device access. Doing so increases security measures for accessing sensitive information, and keeps accountability to resources that have been utilized.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Chitrager US 20160027017.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ashfield fails to disclose wherein the interactive element is customized with a unique verification dataset to be used for the second factor of authentication, and wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has access to the unique verification dataset. However, Chitrager discloses a random number generator before (122) before user authentication device (124) where payment module 120 operates as a random number generator 122, by generating a secure random number, with step S302, payment module 120 operates as user authentication 124, authenticating user information (Para. 29), and which can then be embedded in the QR code (S308 and S309).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the embedded hashing a randomized numbers of Chitrgager. Doing so adds greater security to the authentication process through randomized numbers.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Jackson US 8793776.
Regarding claim 18, modified Ashfield fails to disclose, further comprising: determining, as a third factor of authentication, and based on additional first context data from the first user device and additional second context data from the second user device, that the first user device and the second user device are within a second threshold distance of one another, wherein the second threshold distance is shorter than the threshold distance, and wherein facilitating the transaction is based on the first factor of authentication, the second factor of authentication, and the third factor of authentication. However, Jackson discloses where a system determines the location of an authenticated user logged in to a party application on a computer (502), determines the location of a registered device 504, computes the distances between the location (506) and determines if the threshold of distance is exceeded, and logs the user out if the distance is exceeded (510) (Col. 13, Lines 41-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the threshold distance for authentication of Jackson. Doing so increases security if the devices are not within a specific distance following authentication purposes.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Moore US 20170264608.
Regarding claim 19, The method of claim 6, wherein identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element includes identifying that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element within a threshold amount of time since the providing of the interactive element to the first user device. However, Moore discloses a smartphone 208 with a “time-limited” QR code 207 located on the smart phone as is verified when used by 210 (Para. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the timed QR code. Doing so increases security as the user should use the QR code within a specific time frame.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Haney US 20140148135.
Regarding claim 20, modified Ashfield fails to disclose further comprising: causing the first user device to display a map in response to the first factor of authentication, wherein the map includes a first location associated with the first user device and a second location associated with the second user device. However, Haney discloses an authentication system for a first user device that is authenticated (Fig. 1, Para. 61, device is authenticated) and following authentication, various devices are able to be tracked with location being shown (Fig. 2A, Fig. 5, devices of locations shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the device location list of Haney following authentication. Doing so allows each user to see each other for better security, as well as to understand how long it might take before each user might be able to see the other person.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Visbal US 20160180451.
Regarding claim 21, modified Ashfield fails to disclose generating a plurality of scores corresponding to a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users includes the second user; causing the first user device to display a ranked list of the plurality of users through a user interface. However, Visbal discloses a risk aggregation score display through an interface (Para. 140, scoring strategy tailored to a given type of fraud or risk; Para. 158; Step 1116, Para. 239), with a list of user being presented on a display ((Fig. 5, 7 and 8, with ranked clusters according to scores, 725, and display interface, 870 and 850).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the trust score list of Visbal. Doing so enhances security as the user can feel more confidence in interacting with the user prior to the transaction based on the trust score.
Modified Ashfield also fails to disclose selecting the second user from the plurality of users for the transaction based on receipt of a selection input through the user interface. However, Visbal discloses that the user can select different inputs based on choice and interaction with a user interface (Para. 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the user selection through interaction with an interface. Doing so allows the user to select that which interests them based on ranked score.
Regarding claim 22, modified Ashfield fails to disclose generating a plurality of scores corresponding to a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users includes the second user; and automatically selecting the second user from the plurality of users for the transaction based on the first factor of authentication and a ranking of the plurality of score. However, Visbal discloses automatic tagging of scores based on different criteria of risk search (Claim 1, automatic tagging) with automatic created clusters and scored clusters (Para. 9) with automatic prioritization of top-ranked for further transaction related actions such as investigations, after user authentication to the analysis platform (Para. 54, and 76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Ashfield with the automatic select ability of Visbal. Doing so speeds up the analysis portion of the transaction, as those users that score the highest or meet a certain threshold are selected, and increases overall efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bertanzetti US 20140279503 G06Q20/03 9/18/2014 discloses a customer alert based on a geo-threshold for a customer for a transaction.
Marr US 10857468 A63F13/795 12/8/2020 discloses automatic selection of listed candidates based on scaled scoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693