Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 15/734,241

SYSTEM FOR REMOTE REGISTRATION OF USERS OF A MOBILE NETWORK

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 02, 2020
Examiner
PATEL, NIRAV B
Art Unit
6214
Tech Center
6200
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
6 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
150 granted / 209 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+42.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
4 currently pending
Career history
213
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§112
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 209 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 3, line 3 to page 6, line 11, filed May 7, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US patent publication 20180189561 granted to Bertan et al. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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, 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 20180337917 granted to Wallace and further in view of US patent 20180189561 granted to Bertan et al. Regarding claim 3, Wallace discloses a method for remote registration of a mobile user by means of a mobile communication device provided with a photo capture module {see paragraph [0033] (image capture components) and Figure 1, element 25} and a touch screen {see paragraph [0033] (communication component may include touchscreen, touchpad) and Figure 1, element 22}; characterized by the fact that a mobile user's identity document is photographed by means of the photo capture module, thereby forming an electronic file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document, {see paragraphs [0042] (user captures an image, e.g. a photo of the user); [0047] (user capture an image of a verified identification of the user) [0051] (user captures an image of the user’s verified identification using an image captured device, e.g., a camera) and Figure 3, element 204}; the presence of the signs of authenticity of this document in the file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is verified, the text data from the electronic file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is recognized; {see paragraph [0040] (authentication requirements may include a verified identification requirements, such as a driver's license, the issue date and name of government entity associated with the identification document)]; video recording of the mobile user is performed by means of the photo capture module, thereby forming an electronic file corresponding to the video record of the mobile user, the presence in the electronic file corresponding to the video record of the mobile user of signs of the fact that there was performed video recording of a mobile user who was in front of the photo capture module at the time of video recording is verified, the image of the mobile user from the file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is compared with the image of the mobile user from the file corresponding to the video record of the mobile user to check whether these images of the mobile user correspond to the same person [see paragraph [0051] (user captures an image of the user’s liveness identification using a camera on the user’s mobile device. The user’s liveness identification may be a video or live image.) and Figure 3, element 206}; the identification data is stored, the file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is stored, the text data from the electronic file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is stored, the identification data, the recognized text data from the electronic file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document, a signal about completion of the procedure of remote registration of the mobile user is formed.” {see paragraph [0061] (the organization may store the verified identification image and liveness identification image in order to more quickly authenticate the user in the future.) and Figure 3, elements 224, 226)}. Wallace fails to specifically teach ensuring verification of the document against forgery by recognizing features of authenticity of the document. In an analogous art, Bertan discloses a method of using identification documents during enrollment of an individual where the authenticity of the identification documents are verified against alteration and/or forgery {see paragraphs [0019] and [0067] (the indication associated with authenticity can indicate that identification document 104 at least one of: is an authentic identification, includes a discrepancy, or is potentially a fraudulent identification document 104.)}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine Bertan’s method for validating an identity document with Wallace’s system for user authentication using live captured videos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two in order to ensure only legitimate documents are being used to authenticate a user (see Bertan; paragraph [0062]). Regarding claim 4, Wallace discloses a method for remote registration of a mobile user by means of a mobile communication device provided with a photo capture module {see paragraph [0033] (image capture components) and Figure 1, element 25]} and a touch screen {see paragraph [0033] (communication component may include touchscreen, touchpad) and Figure 1, element 22}; characterized by the fact that a mobile user's identity document is photographed by means of the photo capture module, thereby forming an electronic file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document, the presence of the signs of authenticity of this document in the file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is verified, the text data from the electronic file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is recognized; {see paragraphs [0042] (user captures an image, e.g. a photo of the user); [0047] (user capture an image of a verified identification of the user) [0051] (user captures an image of the user’s verified identification using an image captured device, e.g., a camera) and Figure 3, element 204}; the mobile user is photographed by the photo capture module, thereby forming an electronic file corresponding to the photo image of the mobile user, the image of the mobile user from the file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is compared with the image of the mobile user from the file corresponding to the photo image of the mobile user to check whether these images of the mobile user correspond to the same person; {see paragraph [0042] (user captures an image, e.g., a photo or alive photo of the user.) and Figure 2, element 140}; the identification data is stored, the file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is stored, the text data from the electronic file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document is stored, the identification data, the recognized text data from the electronic file corresponding to the image of the mobile user's identity document, a signal about completion of the procedure of remote registration of the mobile user is formed.” {see paragraph [0061] (the organization may store the verified identification image and liveness identification image in order to more quickly authenticate the user in the future.) and Figure 3, elements 224, 226)}. Wallace fails to specifically teach ensuring verification of the document against forgery by recognizing features of authenticity of the document. In an analogous art, Bertan discloses a method of using identification documents during enrollment of an individual where the authenticity of the identification documents are verified against alteration and/or forgery {see paragraphs [0019] and [0067] (the indication associated with authenticity can indicate that identification document 104 at least one of: is an authentic identification, includes a discrepancy, or is potentially a fraudulent identification document 104.)}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine Bertan’s method for validating an identity document with Wallace’s system for user authentication using live captured videos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two in order to ensure only legitimate documents are being used to authenticate a user (see Bertan; paragraph [0062]). Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 20180337917 granted to Wallace and further in view of US patent 20180189561 granted to Bertan et al and EP 2511861 granted to Garcia. Regarding claim 1, Wallace teaches a system for remotely registration a user {see paragraph [0061] (the organization may store the verified identification image and liveness identification image in order to more quickly authenticate the user in the future.) and Figure 3, elements 224, 226}. The system comprises an identification data module, a photo capture module, a touch screen, a first processing unit, a first management unit, a first memory unit, a second processing unit, a second management unit, a second memory unit, and two receiving-transmitting units, the touch screen being configured for entering text data (see paragraph [0032] and Figure 1). The system produces a file of a relevant graphic format corresponding to the photo image of a document, a file of a relevant graphic format corresponding to the photo image of a code, and a file of a relevant graphic format corresponding to the video image of a person, the second processing unit being configured to recognize a code in the file corresponding to the photo image of a code, to recognize the photo image of a person and text data in the file corresponding to the photo image of a document, to recognize the photo image of a person in the file corresponding to the video image of a person, to compare the recognized photo image of a person from the file corresponding to the image of a document with one of the recognized photo images of a person in the file corresponding to the video image of a person, to compare the photo images of a person in the file corresponding to the video image of a person to verify that this is the image of a living person in reality at the time of photo capture, to recognize the features of authenticity of a document, wherein the first processing unit is connected and configured to acquire signals from the identification data module, the photo capture module and the touch screen, the first memory unit is connected and configured to acquire signals from the first processing unit, the photo capture module and the touch screen, one of the receiving-transmitting units is connected and configured to acquire signals from the first processing unit and the first memory unit and to transmit the signals acquired from the other receiving-transmitting unit to the first management unit and the first processing unit, the first management unit is connected and configured to transmit management signals to the photo capture module, the touch screen, the first processing unit, the first memory unit; the second processing unit is connected and configured to acquire signals from the other receiving-transmitting unit, the second memory unit is connected and configured to acquire signals from the second processing unit, the other receiving- transmitting unit is connected and configured to acquire signals from the second processing unit, the second management unit is connected and configured to transmit management signals to the second processing unit and the second memory unit, the receiving-transmitting units are configured to exchange signals between each other by means of transmission of radio signals.” {see paragraphs [0046]-[0061] and Figure 3}. Wallace fails to specifically teach ensuring verification of the document against forgery by recognizing features of authenticity of the document. In an analogous art, Bertan discloses a method of using identification documents during enrollment of an individual where the authenticity of the identification documents are verified against alteration and/or forgery {see paragraphs [0019] and [0067] (the indication associated with authenticity can indicate that identification document 104 at least one of: is an authentic identification, includes a discrepancy, or is potentially a fraudulent identification document 104.)}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine Bertan’s method for validating an identity document with Wallace’s system for user authentication using live captured videos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two in order to ensure only legitimate documents are being used to authenticate a user (see Bertan; paragraph [0062]). Wallace and Bertan fail to specifically teach a user adding their signature through the use of a touchscreen. In an analogous art, Garcia teaches a remote signature system that compares a user’s signature with identification data (see Abstract). Garcia’s system requires the user to record their signature through a touch screen and insert the signature into the identification data (see paragraphs [0036]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Garcia’s remote signature system with Bertan’s method for validating an identity document and Wallace’s system for user authentication using live captured videos. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the two in order to enhance the credibility of the identification document. By using a unique signature of the user, a verifier can reliably prove the identification document belongs to the user. Claim 2 is a method that is substantially equivalent to method claim 1. Therefore claim 2 is rejected by a similar rationale. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW B SMITHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3876. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 (Teleworking). 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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 571-270-5143. 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 SMITHERS/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2437
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 02, 2020
Application Filed
Dec 02, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 11, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 14, 2023
Response Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 26, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 07, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 09, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 9559918
NULL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 31, 2017
Patent 9553768
NULL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 24, 2017
Patent 9531670
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NETWORK VIRTUALIZATION AND SECURITY USING COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 27, 2016
Patent 9529985
GLOBAL AUTHENTICATION SERVICE USING A GLOBAL USER IDENTIFIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 27, 2016
Patent 9521548
SECURE REGISTRATION OF A MOBILE DEVICE FOR USE WITH A SESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 13, 2016
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+42.4%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 209 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month