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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2016 and 1/22/2017 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/24/2025, wherein:
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system for completing a payment which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions, including marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-10 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claim 1, the claim recite an abstract idea of: completing a payment. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A system for providing an advanced payment solution utilizing a generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based voice fingerprint authentication technology, the system comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor, wherein, when the instructions are executed by the processor, the system controls to: receive a user's voice input and preprocess it, provide the preprocessed voice data to the generative AI to extract a voice pattern, compare the extracted voice pattern with a pre-registered user's voice pattern to check whether they match, display a notification requesting to pronounce a preset password based on a match between the extracted voice pattern and the registered user's voice pattern, receive the user's pronunciation, analyze a pitch, pronunciation speed, and tone of the voice, and determine whether the voice belongs to the registered user based on an analysis result, process a payment request based on a match between the extracted voice pattern and the registered user's voice pattern, and based on a determination that a string recognized from the user's pronunciation matches with a numeric string of the preset password and that a voice pattern of the corresponding password pronunciation is confirmed as that of the registered user, and transmit, in real time, a message indicating that the payment is completed to a user terminal and a payment platform. Independent claim 1 as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, since it recites such as commercial or legal interactions, including marketing or sales activities or behaviors. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “a system comprising a memory with instructions executed by a processor, a generative artificial intelligence (AI), display a notification, a user terminal, and a payment platform”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the independent claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 recite similar limitations as independent claim 1; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements including generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “the system, the instructions executed by the processor, a Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) algorithm, the generative AI, a user terminal, a credit card, electronic money, and mobile payment, encrypt using AES 256 encryption, microphones, an authentication apparatus, a server separate from the system, a voiceprint characteristic model, an acoustic model, a pulse neural network, an interface on the user terminal, and displays a message”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 only recites the additional elements of “a system comprising a memory with instructions executed by a processor, a generative artificial intelligence (AI), display a notification, a user terminal, and a payment platform”. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “the system, the instructions executed by the processor, a Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) algorithm, the generative AI, a user terminal, a credit card, electronic money, and mobile payment, encrypt using AES 256 encryption, microphones, an authentication apparatus, a server separate from the system, a voiceprint characteristic model, an acoustic model, a pulse neural network, an interface on the user terminal, and displays a message”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claim 1 does 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 recited additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-10 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 of the dependent claims to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Overcoming 35 USC §102/§103
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent clam 1 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103.
The closest prior art of record is US 2025/0391410 to Padiyar et al. (hereinafter referred to as Padiyar), US 11,763,824 to Choi et al. (hereinafter referred to as Choi), and US 2022/0036905 to Keith, JR. (hereinafter referred to as Keith). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claim 1. For independent claim 1, the prior art of Padiyar, Choi, and Keith specifically do not disclose: “display a notification requesting to pronounce a password based on a match between the extracted voice pattern and the registered user's voice pattern, receive the user's pronunciation, analyze a pitch, pronunciation speed, and tone of the voice, and determine whether the voice belongs to the registered user based on an analysis result, and based on a determination that a string recognized from the user's pronunciation matches with a numeric string of the preset password and that a voice pattern of the corresponding password pronunciation is confirmed as that of the registered user”. Dependent claims 2-10 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ling (US 11043223) teaches voiceprint recognition model construction.
Shin (KR 101924190B1) teaches a security system based on voice recognition.
Maruyama (US20040186725) teaches verifying a spoken arbitrary password to authenticate a user.
Carroll (US 20220262370) teaches matching unstructured speech data received from a client device to voiceprint data to authenticate a user.
Carroll (US 20240203428) teaches an authentication method and system using voice biometric analysis of spoken phrases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 8/17/2026
Prosecution Insights