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 communication(s) filed on 10 July 2026.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 17 and 22 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-31 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawing
The replacement drawing is accepted. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. §101
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that their claims neither directly state nor describe any of the enumerated concepts of “Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 2019 PEG does not require citations to court cases,
“In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.[20] This prong is similar to procedures in prior guidance except that when determining if a claim recites an abstract idea, examiners now refer to the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas in Section I instead of comparing the claimed concept to the USPTO's prior “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.”” (2019 PEG, page 54, column 1)
Furthermore the 2019 PEG is an incorporation of the results of many cases that have been held in regard to subject matter eligibility.
“These revised patent examination procedures are designed to more accurately and consistently identify claims that recite a practical application of a judicial exception (and thus are not ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception), thereby increasing predictability and consistency in the patent eligibility analysis. This analysis is performed at USPTO Step 2A, and incorporates certain considerations that have been applied by the courts at step one and at step two of the Alice/Mayo framework, given the recognized overlap in the steps depending on the facts of any given case.” (2019 PEG, page 53, column 3)
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 does not require adherence to a strict definition of the groupings and subgroupings of abstract ideas, but rather determine if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such. Performing primary and secondary user identity verification is a tool used to determine risk of a fraudulent act (in the present claims), thus attempting to mitigate the risk of fraud (in the present claims). While the claims may not outright state that they mitigate risk, their main purposes is to mitigate risk of fraud (See the specification at paragraph [0002] “When a card user discovers that they are the victim of a fraudulent operation, generally referring to a credit or debit card transaction, the user typically notifies a card provider and initiates a dispute. If the card user is successful in their dispute, the card provider may cover the cost of the fraudulent operation, and the card provider may suffer a financial loss. Additionally, the card provider may suffer a financial loss if the card provider covers the costs of the dispute process (by, e.g., paying employees to investigate the alleged fraud). Thus, the card provider may lose money every time a user disputes a fraudulent operation. Additionally, the card user may suffer due to the stress involved in managing and responding to fraudulent transactions and may expend time during the fraud investigation process.” The claims are directed to alerting a user of potential fraud such that a user may take corrective action, ergo they are directed towards “mitigating risk” of a potential case of fraud.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that their multi-device computer architecture is a practical application and thereby integrates the recited judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Applicant argue that their claims are eligible for reasons similar to PTAB case Ex Parte Benkreira, Appeal No. 2023-002947 by providing a technology improvement by reducing fraud and improving security in a banking transaction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. PTAB decisions do not represent Office Policy. PTAB cases are not dispositive and are non-precedential and therefore, arguing PTAB decisions is not persuasive. Furthermore, PTAB decisions are specific to the fact pattern of the particular case and are therefore not applicable to other applications.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the cited claim limitations when considered in an ordered combination are not generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (if any) are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B.
Applicant argues that the claims go beyond what is “well-understood, routing and conventional” as none of the cited references discloses or suggests the newly amended recitations of the present claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Furthermore, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Improvement of technology by virtue of novelty or non-obviousness is not a test of eligibility.
Applicant argues that the Office does not consider the specific requirements in the claimed combination of steps. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As already stated (see multiple times throughout the prior and instant Office Actions), “These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.” In order for additional elements to provide more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional, the additional elements must in combination provide additional functionality that is not present when considering the elements individually. Examiner notes that the additional elements do not in combination provide for additional functionality.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible for reasons similar to those given in Ex Parte Desjardins. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ex Parte Desjardins the Examiner in the case did not provide a 101 rejection, but rather a 101 rejection was a new ground of rejection submitted by the board. “This Appeals Review Panel ("ARP") was convened to review the Board's Decision on Appeal ("Dec.") and Decision on Request for Rehearing ("Reh'g Dec."), with particular focus on the Board's new ground of rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).” See Appeal 2024-000567 - Ex Parte Desjardins et al Rehearing Decision Sep 26 2025 at page 1. This new grounds of rejection was later overturned and a Memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner Charles Kim regarding eligibility particularly when evaluating claims related to machine learning or artificial intelligence. As cited below, these updated are not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and are meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.
“These updates are not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and are meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance. Indeed, the Ex Parte Desjardins
decision analyzed eligibility in terms of whether the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under longstanding Federal Circuit precedent in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a).” Charles Kim Memorandum Page 1 (emphasis added).
“In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).” Charles Kim Memorandum Page 2; to be added to the end of MPRP §2106.04(d)(III) (emphasis added).
As such, the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates. In the instant application, the specification does not provide improvements to any technology as applicant asserts. The specification discloses the nature of the claims’ elements:
“[0001] Billions of dollars are lost every year as a result of payment card fraud. Often, the victims of payment card fraud are elderly or otherwise fraud-susceptible individuals. Often, card users only recognize that they have been defrauded once their card statement comes due every month—if they even recognize the fraud at all.
[0002] When a card user discovers that they are the victim of a fraudulent operation, generally referring to a credit or debit card transaction, the user typically notifies a card provider and initiates a dispute. If the card user is successful in their dispute, the card provider may cover the cost of the fraudulent operation, and the card provider may suffer a financial loss. Additionally, the card provider may suffer a financial loss if the card provider covers the costs of the dispute process (by, e.g., paying employees to investigate the alleged fraud). Thus, the card provider may lose money every time a user disputes a fraudulent operation. Additionally, the card user may suffer due to the stress involved in managing and responding to fraudulent transactions and may expend time during the fraud investigation process.
[0003] Despite efforts by card providers to recognize and flag suspicious operations, countless instances of payment card fraud slip past card providers. Artificial intelligence models directed to fraud elimination may be based on historic user behavior, which has its limits. For example, a user may often shop at a certain store in a certain town. If a fraudulent operation is made at the store, then it is less likely that the artificial intelligence models would identify the operation as fraudulent. In another example, a user could make a purchase that breaks historic trends on how or where the user typically spends money because the user may be on vacation. Such an operation may be flagged by artificial intelligence models as fraudulent, even though the transaction was made by the user. The artificial intelligence models try to predict future user behavior based on past user behavior, but the models may not always be accurate. In addition, building and updating artificial intelligence models poses financial costs that may not be sustainable. Therefore, a cost-effective, sustainable, and accurate solution is needed to address payment card fraud, especially in instances where card holders are especially susceptible to payment card fraud.
[0004] The disclosed systems and methods provide a solution for preventing fraudulent operations. The disclosed embodiments provide a solution that allows a user to authorize a pending operation and pass a user identity verification before the pending operation is completed. Through the user approval and user identity verification process, the card provider limits liability for fraudulent operations, and the user avoids fraudulent operations. By preventing more fraudulent operations from occurring, the disclosed systems and methods for preventing fraudulent operations drastically lower the number of disputed operations, saving the user and the card provider the costs of both the fraud itself and the costs of the dispute process, as well as saving the user the stress of disputing potential fraudulent operations.”
Thus, applicant’s specification does NOT support the idea that the cited additional elements either separately or in combination amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field as the specification did in Ex Parte Desjardins. The instant case is not analogous to Ex Parte Desjardins.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103
The claims have been amended to address the objection(s)/rejection(s) presented in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the corresponding objection(s)/rejection(s).
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the instant application’s Claim(s) contain one or more contingent limitation(s). “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.” See MPEP 2111.04(II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite in part, “upon receipt of the pending operation information, lock a pending approval request interface on the user device until the at least one processor authenticates the user”. Examiner notes that the phrase “lock a pending approval request interface on the user device” is defined in the specification: “In some embodiments, processor 904 is configured to not update pending approval user interface 912 until user identity verification protocol 918 verifies user identity. In other words, processor 904 may be configured to lock pending approval interface 912 until the user’s identity is verified. Locking pending approval request interface 912 until the user’s identify has been verified ensures that no operations—either active or passive—are approved without user input. Prompting the user to approve such operations assists users who are not technologically savvy, such as the elderly and very young, by ensuring that the user does not inadvertently authorize a potentially fraudulent operation” (specification at paragraph [0108]). However, in the context of this invention “not updating the pending approval user interface” may have multiple meanings which alters what exactly the scope of the claimed limitation comprises which would render the limitation as relative terminology. For Example, Under the claims’ BRI when read in light of the specification not updating the pending approval interface which may include merely not updating the approval request list but still allowing operation of other aspects or functions of the application, it may include completely preventing updating of all aspects of the pending approval interface but still allowing the user to tab out or switch out of the application so as to access other features of the user’s device, it also may include completely locking the user’s device from any function including tab outs or switch outs functionally locking the user from using their device until they verify user identity. At least these interpretations all have different scopes and given that “locking” is defined by what a user is unable to do with their interface, this limitation when read in light of the specification, in this context is considered relative terminology and rendered indefinite. Examiner will interpret this limitation as the first listed interpretation for purposes of examination.
Any remaining claims not expounded upon are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a system and method for fraudulent operation prevention. These are a machine and a process which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1 and 17:
Claims 1 and 17:
“receive,…, pending operation information, the pending operation information corresponding to a secure operation device and including at least one pending operation, wherein the secure operation device is associated with a secure token and the pending operation occurs…;”
“request,… , identifying information required to use the secure token;”
“present,… , an approval request to authorize the at least one pending operation;”
“upon receipt of the pending operation information, lock a pending approval request interface…until… authenticates the user;”
“receive a user input including one of an approval or a disapproval of the approval request;”
“upon receiving an approval of the approval request, perform a primary user identity verification by …comparing the captured biometric data against stored biometric reference data associated with the secure operation device to authenticate a user using the user device;”
“authorize the pending operation based on the primary user identity verification if the primary user identity verification authenticates the user;”
“request a secondary user identity verification, comprising a verification method different from the primary user identity verification, if the primary user identity verification does not authenticate the user;”
“perform the secondary user identity verification;”
“upon performing the secondary user identity verification, block the at least one pending operation if the secondary user identity verification does not authenticate the user based on the identifying information associated with the secure token;”
“upon performing the secondary user identity verification, complete the at least one pending operation if the secondary user identity verification authenticates the user based on the identifying information associated with the secure token;”
“transmit, to the terminal, a status of the pending operation based on whether the user is authenticated.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a remote server”, “a terminal”, “at least one memory for storing instructions”, “a user device”, “a secure operation device”, or “at least one processor” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Mitigating Risk. Mitigating Risk is described when performing identity verification on a user and executing operations based on said verification. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claims 1 and 17:
“…from a remote server…”
“…at the terminal…"
“…from the terminal…”
“…on a user device associated with the secure operation device…”
“…on the user device…the at least one processor…”
“…activating a biometric sensor of the user device to capture biometric data of the user…”
Claim 1:
“a terminal;”
“at least one memory for storing instructions;”
“at least one processor of a server in communication with the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions to:”
The computer components (servers, terminal, user device, memory, and processor) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic servers, a generic terminal, a generic device, generic memory, and a generic processor) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The use of a biometric sensor is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claims 1 and 17:
“…from a remote server…”
“…at the terminal…"
“…from the terminal…”
“…on a user device associated with the secure operation device…”
Claim 1:
“a terminal;”
“at least one memory for storing instructions;”
“at least one processor of a server in communication with the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the stored instructions to:”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The independent claims contain no elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-16 and 18-31 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 6 and 22 further recite a camera, a microphone, and a fingerprint scanner. The use of a camera, a microphone, and a fingerprint scanner is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claims 6 and 22:
“a biometric sensor;”
“a camera configured to…”
“a microphone configured to…”
“a fingerprint scanner configured to…”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The dependent claims contain no elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes a search was performed but did not result in a prior art rejection that discloses the limitation “upon receipt of the pending operation information, lock a pending approval request interface on the user device until the at least one processor authenticates the user;” when read in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tomasofsky et al. (US 2016/0078443 A1) discloses step-up authentication for a transaction request including multiple risk factor checks.
Smothers et al. (WO 2017/165759 A2) discloses starting a timeout period with a countdown timer when user receives the notification request and not approving the transaction (i.e. block) if a response is not received within the timeout period.
Einhorn (US 2016/0140564 A1) discloses various degrees of locking a mobile payment device based on validity tokens.
Park et al. (“Leveraging Cellular Infrastructure to Improve Fraud Prevention”) discloses push technology enabling requests to be alerted to the user in real-time.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights