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
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 5/18/2026.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 15, 22 and 23 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 2-18, and 20-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 2-18, and 20-23 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 an interactive element having encrypted information encoded therein; providing the 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 interactive element as provided to the first user device within a threshold amount of time since the providing of the interactive element to the first user device, wherein the interaction with the interactive element includes decrypting the encrypted information; verifying, based on the first factor of authentication and the second factor of authentication, a first identity associated with the first user device and a second identity associated with the second user device; and facilitating a transaction between a first account and a second account based on the verification, 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. 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 interactive element. The additional elements of a first and second user device, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of interactive element are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of QR bar codes (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 (first and second user device, and 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 QR bar codes 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 QR bar codes 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 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 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 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, wherein the first context data includes first location data associated with the first user device, wherein the second context data includes second location data associated with the second user device, and wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another includes determining, based on the first location data and the second location data, that the first user device and the second user device are within a threshold distance of one another; generating an interactive element having encrypted information encoded therein; providing the interactive element to the first user device in response to the first factor authentication; 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 device within a threshold amount of time since the providing of the interactive element to the first user device, wherein the interaction with the interactive element includes decrypting, by the second user device, the encrypted information to generate decrypted information; verifying, based on the first factor of authentication, the second factor of authentication, and the decrypted information, a first identity associated with the first user device and a second identity associated with the second user device; and facilitating a transaction between a first account and a second account based on the verification, 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. 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 interactive element. The additional elements of a first and second user device, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of the interactive element are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of QR bar codes (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 (first and second user device, and 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 QR bar codes 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 QR bar codes 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 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. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of the interactive element are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of QR bar codes (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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 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. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of the interactive element are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of QR bar codes (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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 the encrypted information 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 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. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of the interactive element are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of QR bar codes (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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 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. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of the interactive element and link are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of QR bar codes (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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 the 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. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of the interactive element are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of QR bar codes (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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 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. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 6, and the additional elements of the interactive element are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of QR bar codes (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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 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 23 recites a system of multi-factor authentication, the system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions, wherein execution of the instructions causes the at least one processor to: determine, 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, wherein the first context data includes first location data associated with the first user device, wherein the second context data includes second location data associated with the second user device, and wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another includes determining, based on the first location data and the second location data, that the first user device and the second user device are within a threshold distance of one another; generate an interactive element having encrypted information encoded therein; provide the interactive element to the first user device in response to the first factor authentication; identify, as a second factor of authentication, that the second user device has interacted with the interactive element as provided to the first user device within a threshold amount of time since the providing of the interactive element to the first user device, wherein the interaction with the interactive element includes decrypting, by the second user device, the encrypted information to generate decrypted information; verify, based on the first factor of authentication, the second factor of authentication, and the decrypted information, a first identity associated with the first user device and a second identity associated with the second user device; and facilitate a transaction between a first account and a second account based on the verification, 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. 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 storing instructions, first and second user device, and interactive element. 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 the interactive element are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of QR bar codes (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 storing instructions, first and second user device, and 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 QR bar codes 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 QR bar codes 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-18, and 20-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101; set forth in the above Office Action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ashfield US 8295898, in view of Flurschiem US 20150088674 and DeSoto US 20130219479, discloses 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; 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 generating a customized an interactive element having encrypted information encoded therein; 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 within a threshold amount of time since the providing of the interactive element to the first user device, wherein the interaction with the interactive element includes decrypting, by the second user device, the encrypted information to generate decrypted information; the prior art fails to disclose another, wherein the first context data includes first location data associated with the first user device, wherein the second context data includes second location data associated with the second user device, and wherein determining that the first user device and the second user device are associated with one another includes determining, based on the first location data and the second location data, that the first user device and the second user device are within a threshold distance of one another; verifying, based on first factor of authentication from a location threshold distance, the second factor of authentication of a time elapsed interactive element, and decrypted information, a first identity associated with the first user device and a second identity associated with the second user device; and facilitating a transaction between a first account and a second account based on the verification, wherein the first account is associated with the first user device, and wherein the second account is associated with the second user device.
However, the claims still do not overcome the 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently amended claims are not abstract. Examiner disagrees. 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.
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points. First, not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity"), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks.
The term "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept). However, being old or well-known may indicate that the practice is fundamental. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 219-20, 110 USPQ2d 1981-82 (2014) (describing the concept of intermediated settlement, like the risk hedging in Bilski, to be a "‘fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce’" and also as "a building block of the modern economy") (citation omitted); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (claims to the concept of hedging are a "fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class.") (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1356 (2016) ("The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’").
An example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (2010). The fundamental economic practice at issue was hedging or protecting against risk. The applicant in Bilski claimed "a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk," i.e., how to protect against risk. 561 U.S. at 599, 95 USPQ2d at 1005. The method allowed energy suppliers and consumers to minimize the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand for energy. The Supreme Court determined that hedging is "fundamental economic practice" and therefore is an "unpatentable abstract idea." 561 U.S. at 611-12, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
Another example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bancorp Services., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The fundamental economic practice at issue in Bancorp pertained to insurance. The patentee in Bancorp claimed methods and systems for managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, which comprised steps including generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities, calculating surrender value protected investment credits for the life insurance policy; determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities for the current day; and calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day. 687 F.3d at 1270-71, 103 USPQ2d at 1427. The court described the claims as an "attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [managing a stable value protected life insurance policy] and then instruct the use of well-known [calculations] to help establish some of the inputs into the equation." 687 F.3d at 1278, 103 USPQ2d at 1433 (alterations in original) (citing Bilski).
"Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108.
The sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games”, which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.
The mere authentication of identity of transacting parties manages the contractual relationship of between the parties, so the claim limitations are a commercial interaction. Improvement to functioning of an authentication process applied to a system is not an improvement to technology, and is only an improvement to the judicial exception.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims are a practical application (pg. 11-15). Examiner disagrees. The verification does not have anything to do with computer, and uses two factor pieces of information, with device location data of both locations are close together, and then pass phrase authentication (QR code). The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are similar to Cosmokey (pgs. 15-17. Examiner disagrees. The Federal Circuit stated that the patent claims and specification recited a specific improvement to authentication that increases security, prevents unauthorized access by a third party, is easily implemented, and can advantageously be carried out with mobile devices of low complexity. The Court also noted that the authentication function being “normally disabled” and only activated temporarily for a specific transaction was the distinguishing technical detail (with an on/off mobile authentication designed to prevent hacking and save power). This was not merely “authentication”, but was a specific architectural improvement to how authentication is structured (by keeping the mobile authentication normally inactive, the system drastically reduced the window for fraudulent access, requiring it to be manually activated only during a specific transaction window). This is different than the currently recited claim limitations, which involve distance location between devices with a QR code for authentication.
Lastly, the claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims solve location based authentication between two devices, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DeSoto US 20130219479 H04L29/06 8/22/2013 discloses a login using a QR code with a time stamp for a period of valid use for verification and authentication (Para. 28).
Pinto US 20160086179 G06Q20/40 3/24/2016 discloses a method for multi-factor transaction authentication using wearable devices with nonce codes between parties of the transaction (Para. 29).
Rule US 20210004803 1/7/2021 G06Q20/40 discloses a mobile device and point of sale device are within a threshold distance for transaction authorization (Para. 3).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights