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 Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 07/22/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 18 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 3, 5 – 8, 10 – 17, 19, and 20 remain as original.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 102/103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 04/29/2026 as to claims 1 – 20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
The prior 35 USC 101 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 04/29/2026 as to claims 1 – 20 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1 – 20, Applicant argues that the claims as amended are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because they meet the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court. Remarks 9 - 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject claims noted were analyzed pursuant to MPEP 2106, et seq., and are still considered ineligible. Step 1 is met because the claims are directed towards one of the four statutory categories; Part 2A-Prong1 of the test is trying to evaluate if the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)); Part 2A-Prong 2 is to evaluate whether the subject claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, and, lastly, Part 2B checks whether the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the amended claim set will follow below.
As respects 35 USC 101, the claims as a whole amount to a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations when taken individually and in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field nor improvements to the function of the computer itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the specifics of the claims follows below.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 101 that claims 1 - 20 as amended do not recite a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong One. Remarks 9 – 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner previously opined that the instant claim limitations (and, now, as amended) broadly interpreted cover performance of the limitation(s) as certain methods of organizing human activity which include a fundamental principal or practice and/or a commercial interaction. As such, the limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The above independent claims recite an abstract idea, which is:
receive a request to complete a second authentication without requesting authentication information
Applicant argues that it has integrated any judicial exception into a practical application. Remarks 11 – 12. Namely, that the amended claims of 7/22/2026 reduce latency in the transaction by automatically providing second factor authentication info without needing the user device. It remains unclear however how a computer that provides a “second” factor authentication automatically “reduces time”/ “latency” in an authentication process. The authentication parameters, assuming that they exist for the sake of this argument, in the said second authentication info are not at all disclosed. That said, it is impossible to determine whether time is actually saved by the putative two authentication process, because the reader of the patent is left without knowing what those second factor parameters actually consist of (the second factor parameter(s) could be complex or could be a single bit of data, or that the several parameters in said first/second authentications may be interchangeable or duplicative). Moreover, no time (for the transaction) comparison to a single factor authentication, nor, for that matter, to a two part authentication wherein the user device is utilized, is disclosed.
Claim Rejections35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 - 8 are directed to a system (machine), claims 9 - 17 are directed to a method (process), and claims 18 – 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM; composition). The independent claims are thus directed to eligible statutory categories of invention pursuant to 35 USC 101. (Step 1: YES, the independent claims all fall within a statutory category).
Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that best represents the claimed invention for 35 USC 101 analysis, as it's sufficiently similar to independent method claim 9 and independent CRM claim 18.
These independent claims, as amended, recite the limitations of:
(claims 1, 9, and 18) 1. (Currently Amended) A computer system for reducing network latency, comprising: memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to cause the computer system to: monitor, at a first time, data associated with execution of a first authentication request for a user device; receive, from the user device and at a second time that is after the first time, a request to complete a second authentication request for the user device; determine that the second authentication request is associated with a multi-factor authentication requirement that requires first factor authentication information and second factor authentication information to be provided to an authentication system; generate, based on determining that the second authentication request is associated with the multi-factor authentication requirement that requires the first factor authentication information and the second factor authentication information to be provided to the authentication system, the second factor authentication information in accordance with the monitored data associated with execution of the first authentication request; and transmit, to the authentication system, after generating the second factor authentication information, and in connection with the second authentication request, an electronic message comprising information for providing the first factor authentication information and the second factor authentication information to satisfy the multi-factor authentication requirement without requesting the second factor authentication information from the user device for the second authentication request.
The above independent claims recite an abstract idea, which is:
receive a request to complete a second authentication without requesting authentication information
The above abstract idea recites a fundamental economic practice (authenticating user platforms for a potential transaction, and evaluating attendant risks) and/or it recites a commercial interaction (use of a commercial application to makes transfers between users). These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims 1, 9, and 18 as above recite an abstract idea.
The above bolded terms of the independent claims recite: computer system; memory; one or more processors, coupled to the memory, user device; authentication system; electronic message (plus the computer hardware of independent claims 9 and 16, including a non-transitory computer readable storage medium). Said generic computer components / computer driven systems above bolded are just being applied as against the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. There are no additional elements cited in the independent claims. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
As to the dependent claims 2 – 8, 10 – 17, and 19 – 20, they further refine the above noted abstract idea set forth by the independent claims as follows:
(Claims 2 and 10) The computer system of claim 1, wherein, to generate the second factor authentication information, the one or more processors are configured to cause the computer system to: generate the second factor authentication information without requiring input pertaining to the second factor authentication information to be entered or obtained across a network.
(Claims 3, 11, and 20) The computer system of claim 1, wherein, to generate the second factor authentication information, the one or more processors are configured to cause the computer system to: generate the second factor authentication information based on determining that the second authentication request is associated with the multi-factor authentication requirement and based on the first authentication request being during a same browsing session as the second authentication request.
(Claim 4). The computer system of claim 1, wherein, to monitor the data associated with execution of the first authentication request, the one or more processors are configured to cause the computer system to: monitor, during the execution of the first authentication request, an entry of a one-time passcode for the second factor authentication information.
(claims 5 and 12) The computer system of claim 4, wherein the one-time passcode is entered within a threshold amount of time after the one-time passcode is sent.
(claims 6 and 13) The computer system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first authentication request or the second authentication request are for accessing a web page.
(claim 7) The computer system of claim 1, wherein the request to complete the second authentication request comprises the first factor authentication information.
(claim 8) The computer system of claim 1, wherein the information for providing the first factor authentication information and the second factor authentication information comprises the first factor authentication information and the second factor authentication information.
(claim 14) The method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving, after providing the second factor authentication information, an authentication result that authenticates the user device to perform an electronic transaction associated with the second authentication request.
(claim 15) The method of claim 9, further comprising: storing the second factor authentication information in a storage location, wherein the information regarding the second factor authentication information includes information identifying the storage location.
(claim 16) The method of claim 9, further comprising: encrypting the second factor authentication information; and transmitting an encryption key for decrypting the second factor authentication information.
(claim 17). The method of claim 9, wherein the multi-factor authentication requirement comprises a three-dimensional secure (3DS) protocol or a one-time password (OTP) authentication.
(claim 19) The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 18, wherein the second factor authentication information is provided to satisfy the second factor requirement during execution of the first authentication request.
Examiner notes that the above bolded computer / computer driven terms set forth in the dependent claims: computer system, one or more processors, a network, browsing session, web page, electronic transaction, three-dimensional secure (3DS) protocol, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media are also being applied as tools to the abstract idea, without more. Moreover, the above noted non-computer related additional element in the dependent claims of encryption, only generally links the abstract idea herein to encryption technology, without more.
The computer hardware/software above bolded are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic processors, computer systems, and memories all performing generic computer functions), and the same amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). 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. That said, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additionally claimed elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
All claims above reviewed also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claims do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to perform a judicial exception by applying generic computer components and thereby automating the process cannot provide an inventive concept.
This Application's lack of providing significantly more than the judicial exception is also referred to as its claims lacking an “inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool to the abstract idea is not indicative of significantly more. The above detailed non-computer related elements do not change the outcome of the analysis, as they simply further limit ways which the abstract idea may be performed. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception).
In summary, the claim set reviewed as above does not include any additional elements that integrate its abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 1 – 20 are not patent-eligible pursuant to 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the additional rejection herein pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101 The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the claims' limitations most recently set forth herein may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Piel (US11271930B2) – An authentication correlation (AC) computing device is provided. The AC computing device includes a processor and a memory. The AC computing device receives a first authentication request from a requesting computer device including an account identifier, a first timestamp, and at least one authentication factor, and determines a first security level of the first authentication request. The AC computing device stores the first security level and the first timestamp. The AC computing device is also configured to receive a second authentication request including the account identifier and a second timestamp, determine that the second authentication satisfies an authentication rule based on the account identifier, the second timestamp, and the stored authentication data wherein the rule defines a timeframe and an authentication threshold, and generate an authentication response based on the determination and the authentication rule wherein the authentication response includes an approval indicator.
Schneider (US20140250518A1) – Computer implemented multi-factor authentication method for authenticating a user of a secured component (21, 31), comprises the user requesting access to the secured component (21, 31) via a client device (2); client device (2) providing a first authentication factor (22) to the user who provides the first authentication factor (22) to a personal device (5) and associated to the user at an authentication component (51, 61); client device (2) and personal device (5) are physically distinct; the user providing a second authentication factor to personal device (5) and forwarding first authentication factor (22) and second identification factor to authentication component (51, 61); authentication component (51, 61) verifying identity of user and providing an access token (62) to secured component (21, 31) which provides the user access to secured component (21, 31) on client device (2) in accordance with the access token (62). Allows separating authentication from use of secured component.
Beigi (US20120110341A1) – The following is a system in which a person may use a Cellular (Mobile) Telephone, a PDA or any other handheld computer to make a purchase. This is an example only. The process may entail any type of transaction which requires authentication, such as any financial transaction, any access control (to account information, etc.), and any physical access scenario such as doubling for a passport or an access key to a restricted area (office, vault, etc.). It may also be used to conduct remote transactions such as those conducted on the Internet (E-Commerce, account access, etc.). In the process, a multi-factor authentication is used.
Viacheslav (US20130179350A1) – Technologies are generally described for security algorithm methods in authorizing and linking devices associated with a customer. A first device can be linked to a customer account. Additional devices can be linked to the customer account. Those devices can be authenticated to perform banking operations using dual factor authentication wherein a customer's login information is a first factor and the customer using a previously authenticated device is a second factor. By using additional methods of authentication, transactions can be done more reliably and securely.
Nicholson (US20070022301A1) - A system and method for authenticating an online user by using different and independent communication services to enhance security. A key server validates the factors of authentication, namely a first factor (username/password) and a second factor (key). The key server generates and sends the key to the user with a different and independent communication service, e.g., telephone, SMS or email. The user then submits the key using the online communication service. A third factor, e.g., a second password or a biometric symbol of the user, can also be used. Validation of the biometric symbol can be a prerequisite to delivery of the key to the user. A plurality of the independent services can be daisy-chained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights