CTNF 19/210,956 CTNF 85123 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The following is a non-final, first office action on the merits, in response to application filed 5/16/2025. Claim 1-20 has been examined and are currently pending. Priority This application discloses and claims a continuation of 18/601608 (now Patent 12,314,957), filed 3/11/2024, which is in turn a continuation of 17/343263 (now patent 11,928,684), filed 6/9/2021, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation of 18/601608. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claim 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over current allowed co-pending independent claims 1, 11 of U.S. Application 18/601608 (now Patent 12,314,957). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other of claim 1, 11, respectively of the instant application because all the elements of the instant application claim 1, 8, 15 is to be found in patent claim 1, 11. The difference between the instant application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claim includes more elements and is thus more specific. Thus, the invention of the claims 1, 11 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application claims 1, 8, 15. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since instant application claim 1, 8, 15 is anticipated by the claim 1, 11, of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from the claims of the patent. For reference, the following table matches the primary limitations of claim 1 of application 18/601608 (now patent 12, 314,957) with the similar limitations of claim 1 of the instant application (differences highlighted in bold type). Allowed Claims in patent Application 18/601608, (now Patent 12,314,957).Current Application 19/210956 which is a Continuation of patent 18/601608, (now Patent 12,314,957) Allowed Claims in patent Application 18/601608, (now Patent 12,314,957) Current Application 19/210956 which is a Continuation of patent 18/601608, (now Patent 12,314,957) Allowed Claim 1 (method) receiving, by at least one processor, a profile activity authorization request associated with a user profile of the user; wherein the profile activity authorization request comprises: i) a time-stamp associated with a profile activity, ii) a profile identifier identifying the user profile associated with the profile activity, and iii) a value associated with the profile activity; accessing, by the at least one processor, an application log of application events of a software application associated with the user; wherein the application events comprise an application open event indicator representing the application open event; determining, by the at least one processor, based on the application open event indicator, an application open period representing a time period during which the software application is open; determining, by the at least one processor, the profile activity authorization request is a user intended profile activity authorization request based at least in part on a time difference between the profile activity authorization request and the application open period; transmitting, by the at least one processor, a signal, in response to the profile activity authorization request, to cause execution of the profile activity based at least in part on the profile activity authorization request is the user intended profile activity authorization request. Claim 1 (method) determining, by at least one processor, an application open period representing a time period during which a software application is open on a user device based at least in part on software application event data reported by the software application; determining, by the at least one processor, a profile activity authorization request is a user intended profile activity authorization request based at least in part on a time difference between the profile activity authorization request and the application open period; and transmitting, by the at least one processor, a signal, in response to the profile activity authorization request, to cause execution of the profile activity based at least in part on the profile activity authorization request is the user intended profile activity authorization request. Therefore, as discussed above, the scope of claim 1, 8, 15 of the present application and allowed claims 1, 11, respectively of U.S. Application No. 18/601608 (now Patent 12,314,957) are practically identical. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform the same method steps, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other invention. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Therefore, as discussed above, the scope of claim 1, 8, 15 of the present application and allowed claims 1, 11, respectively of U.S. Application No. 18/601608 (now Patent 12,314,957) are practically identical. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform the same method steps, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other invention. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 USC § 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. Claim 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, regardless of a system/apparatus, a method, or a product claim. The claimed invention (Claim 1) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Organized Method of Human Activity”, “an idea of itself”, “Mental Process”, which have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in new 101 memos of the subject matter eligibility in here (https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility) including 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications: Independent claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to multiple abstract ideas including “Organized Method of Human Activity”, and “Mental process”. Claim 1, steps of, determining, by at least one processor , an application open period representing a time period during which a software application is open on a user device based at least in part on software application event data reported by the software application; determining, by the at least one processor , a profile activity authorization request is a user intended profile activity authorization request based at least in part on a time difference between the profile activity authorization request and the application open period; and transmitting, by the at least one processor, a signal, in response to the profile activity authorization request, to cause execution of the profile activity based at least in part on the profile activity authorization request is the user intended profile activity authorization request. fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea. The instant claims recite “determining an application open period”, “determining a authorization request”, transmitting data“, which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. The instant steps also fall within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since these limitation covers performance of the limitations in the mind, or by paper and pen. For example, one can evaluate/determine an application open period, can evaluate/determine if it is a user the authorization request, can observe/transmit/send a signal/alert. Further, steps of (“transmitting….” ) are considered as “insignificant extra-solution activity” to the judicial exception since they are merely sending data/information . Independent claim 1, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element ( a processor). Other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. There is no specificity regarding any technology, just broadly, a processor executes the programming instructions, couple of databases to store data, receiving/sending data over internet. It should be noted the limitations of the method claims are claimed as being performed by a computing device recited in method claim 1 and reciting them as though they are performed by the generically recited physical computing device does not constitute an improvement to another technology or technical field. The limitations are merely software instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer/server and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Thus, the computing device is not an essential element to actually create, change, or display functionality, and is simply used as a tool to automate the mental tasks. Applicant simply use a generic processor/server/computing device/device as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. The Examiner notes the instant claimed invention is in fact merely carried out by a generically recited computing platform; that is, essentially any computing system as seen in the applicant’s specification. The additional element limitations are simply a field of use that attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significant more. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Independent claim 1 (step 2B): The additional element (a processor), is recited at high level of generality and is a generic computing component, and add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. This component is merely recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Generic computer/device components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and convention activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to receive/transmit/present/display information does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea. (see analysis in claim 1). According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (evidence required by Berkeimer memo). Further, according to Berkheimer memo 04/19/2018, section III.A.1, “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”. Applicant’s Specification, [29, 32, 76, 77] indicate a general-purpose computer perform the instant steps and demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the information processing device (a processor/a computer) in any computing implementation. In other word, in light of the description in the specification as mentioned above with respect to paras [29, 32, 76, 77], the Specification demonstrates that the additional elements must be sufficiently well-known. Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to Berkheimer memo. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above steps do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Dependent claims 2-7, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, are also non-statutory subject matter. Similarly, independent method claim 8, 15 is also directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (see analysis in claim 1). Dependent claims 9-14, and 16-20, are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 8, and 15 respectively, without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20, are also non-statutory subject matter. Viewed as a whole, the claim (1-20) does not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claims do NOT recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, the claimed invention, as a whole, does not provide 'significantly more' than the abstract idea, and is non-statutory subject matter. Allowable Subject Matter The instant continuation application has the allowed features presented in 18/601608 (now patent 12,314,957). As to the prior art rejections, upon further search and consideration, it is found that claim 1-20 is allowable subject to outstanding double patenting issues, and Alice 101 rejection. An approved terminal disclaimer is required. 07-43-03 AIA As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, and pending remedy to outstanding issues cited above. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Botros, et al. (US 2018/0268408, teaches programming a POS device to implement a cardholder verification method (CVM) that specifies the POS device to request verification information from a customer engaging in a transaction at the POS), Machani, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,063,57, teaches comparing behavior patterns associated with user interactions), and Umrao, et al. (US 2021/0019736, teaches approving or authorizing a transaction based on comparing an image of a payment card presented during a transaction to previously stored images of the payment card), Pitz et al. (US 2017/0357977, teaches real-time fraud decisioning in transaction processing, real time alerts for fraud notification, and tracking and identification of fraudulent activity), Pitz et al. (US Patent 10,565,589, teaches (i) receiving an authentication request message associated with a proposed transaction, and (ii) determining the user device has exited from the area of valid account activity defined by the created geofence) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm. Fax is 571-270-6489. 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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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. /SUN M LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 2 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 3 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 4 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 5 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 6 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 7 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 8 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 9 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 10 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 11 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 12 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 13 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 14 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 15 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 16 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 17 Art Unit: 3685 Application/Control Number: 19/210,956 Page 18 Art Unit: 3685
Prosecution Insights