DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/07/2025, and the subsequent preliminary amendment filed on 10/21/2025.
Claims 2-21 have been added.
Claim 1 has been canceled.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 08/14/2025, 09/02/2025, and 01/13/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 2 (representative of claims 11 and 16):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
receiving, by a user computing device, a request for a transaction involving a user of the user computing device and a third party system; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
receiving, by the user computing device, first user authentication information for a first trusted system; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
receiving, from the first trusted system by the user computing device, confirmation of a first valid login to the first trusted system based on the first user authentication information; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
receiving, by the user computing device, second user authentication information for a second trusted system; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
receiving, from the second trusted system by the user computing device, confirmation of a second valid login to the second trusted system based on the second user authentication information; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
in response to receiving the confirmation of the first valid login and the confirmation of the second valid login, outputting, by the user computing device, a proof of authentication to enable the transaction. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 3-10, 12-15, and 17-21 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 11 and 16):
…a user computing device
…a third party system
…a computing system
…a processor
…a non-transitory, computer-readable medium
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y.A. et al. (USPGP 2022/0227251 A1), hereinafter YA, in view of Park et al. (USPGP 2009/0119763 A1), hereinafter PARK, and further in view of James Michael Stewart “The Three Types of Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA).” (June 26, 2018), hereinafter STEWART.
Claims 2, 11, 16:
YA as shown below discloses the following limitations:
receiving, by a user computing device, a request for a transaction involving a user of the user computing device and a third party system; (see at least Figures 2 and 5 as well as associated and related text; paragraphs 0006, 0027, 0031, 0034)
YA does not specifically disclose the following limitations, but PARK as shown does:
receiving, from a user, a request for a transaction with a third party system; (see at least paragraphs 0014, 0015, 0030, 0031, 0043)
receiving, by the user computing device, first user authentication information for a first trusted system; (see at least paragraphs 0014, 0015, 0030, 0031, 0043)
receiving, from the first trusted system by the user computing device, confirmation of a first valid login to the first trusted system based on the first user authentication information; (see at least paragraphs 0014, 0015, 0030, 0031, 0043)
receiving, by the user computing device, second user authentication information for a second trusted system; (see at least paragraphs 0014, 0015, 0030, 0031, 0043)
receiving, from the second trusted system by the user computing device, confirmation of a second valid login to the second trusted system based on the second user authentication information; (see at least paragraphs 0014, 0015, 0030, 0031, 0043)
in response to receiving the confirmation of the first valid login and the confirmation of the second valid login, outputting, by the user computing device, a proof of authentication to enable the transaction. (see at least paragraphs 0014, 0015, 0030, 0031, 0043)
In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of YA with the technique of PARK because “An issue with the existing techniques is the lack of authentication scheme for the EV to allow guest charging using a smart sub metering mechanism at home or commercial complex. Further, an EV with single authentication key may not be able to charge the rechargeable batteries associated with the EV from multiple energy distribution vendors, home or commercial complex.” (YA: paragraph 0003).. Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
STEWART further discloses Multi-factor authentication (MFA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine/modify the secure transaction and electric charging method of YA with the MFA steps of STEWART because, “An issue with the existing techniques is the lack of authentication scheme for the EV to allow guest charging using a smart sub metering mechanism at home or commercial complex. Further, an EV with single authentication key may not be able to charge the rechargeable batteries associated with the EV from multiple energy distribution vendors, home or commercial complex.” (YA: paragraph 0003). Moreover, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In this case, authentication procedures coupled with blockchain structures provide a safe and reliable method for conducting charging transactions. Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 3:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. PARK further discloses the following limitations:
wherein outputting the proof of authentication is without outputting identification information of the user to the third party system.
See at least paragraphs 0027 and 0032. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of YA with the technique of PARK because “An issue with the existing techniques is the lack of authentication scheme for the EV to allow guest charging using a smart sub metering mechanism at home or commercial complex. Further, an EV with single authentication key may not be able to charge the rechargeable batteries associated with the EV from multiple energy distribution vendors, home or commercial complex.” (YA: paragraph 0003).. Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 4:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first trusted system is local to the user computing device.
See at least paragraph 0058.
Claim 6:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the user computing device communicates with the second trusted system over a network.
See at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 8, 9:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA further discloses the following limitations:
wherein outputting the proof of authentication comprises outputting a code that can be input to the third party system.
wherein the code comprises a quick- response (QR) code.
See at least paragraphs 0003 and 0031.
Claims 10:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA further discloses the following limitations:
wherein outputting the proof of authentication comprises causing an authentication code to be transmitted to the third party system over a network.
See at least paragraphs 0006 and 0032.
Claims 12-14:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first trusted system or the second trusted system executes on the computing system and the other of the first trusted system or the second trusted system is remote from the computing system and communicates with the computing system over a network.
wherein the first trusted system and the second trusted system execute on the computing system.
wherein the first trusted system and the second trusted system are remote from the computing system and communicate with the computing system over a network.
See at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 15:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA further discloses the following limitations:
wherein:
causing the user to provide the first user authentication information comprises prompting the user to enter the first user authentication information in response to the request for the transaction;
or causing the user to provide the second user authentication information comprises prompting the user to enter the second user authentication information in response to the request for the transaction.
See at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 17, 18:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA further discloses the following limitations:
wherein outputting the proof of authentication comprises outputting a visible code on a graphical user interface of the user computing device.
wherein the visible code is a one time use code.
See at least paragraphs 0003 and 0031.
Claim 20:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the third party system comprises one of:
a building security system;
a computer terminal access control;
a point of sale system;
an electric vehicle charger;
a gas pump.
See at least paragraphs 0027, 0029, 0058.
Claim 21:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the third party system, the first trusted system, and the second trusted system are different systems from one another.
See at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 5, 7, 19 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YA/PARK/STEWART and further in view of Examiner’s OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Claims 5, 7, 19:
The combination of YA/PARK/STEWART discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. YA/PARK/STEWART does not specifically disclose:
wherein the first user authentication information comprises biometric information of the user or an answer from the user to a something you should know test.
wherein the second user authentication information comprises a username and password for the second trusted system.
wherein: one of the first user authentication information or the second user authentication information comprises biometric information of the user; and the other of the first user authentication information or the second user authentication information comprises a username and a password.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the ecommerce arts to utilize various credentials for identification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of YA/PARK/STEWART with the technique of biometrics, usernames, and passwords because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Haitao Liu et al. “Application of Blockchain Technology in Electric Vehicle Charging Piles Based on Electricity Internet of Things.” (31 August 2022). Retrieved online 04/19/2024. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/wcmc/2022/8533219/
EVGI Working Group. “Blockchains for Electric Vehicles & Grid Integration Review Mobility Open Blockchain Initiative.” (August 2020). Retrieved online 04/19/2024. https://dlt.mobi/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/EVGI-Business-Review.pdf
Shiyuan Xu et al. “EVchain: An Anonymous Blockchain-Based System for Charging–Connected Electric Vehicles.” (December 2021). Retrieved online 04/19/2024. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9449329
Foreign Art:
MICHAEL MENENDEZ et al. “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING TARGETED ADVERTISEMENTS TO CHARGING STATION FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES.” (JP 2020/042844 A)
LIN CHEN-SHENG et al. “METHOD OF ASSISTING ELECTRIC VEHICLE USER IN RESERVING RECHARGEABLE BATTERY AT CHARGING STATION.” (JP 2019/164768 A)
YAMAMURA MAKOTO et al. “CHARGING STATION AND CHARGING-STATION GUIDANCE APPARATUS FOR AUTONOMOUS TRAVEL SERVICE VEHICLE.” (JP 2017/182635 A)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights