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 .
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 35-40, 42, 45-51, 53, and 55-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 35 recite(s) an abstract idea of an abstract idea/ fundamental economic principle to determine if a person is authorized to transact an account (organized human activity) /mental process, as per the MPEP 2106.04a wherein managing behavior/ relationships/ interactions between people (including social activity, teaching, following rules/ instructions, etc.). In the independent claims, a scanner/ reader/ imager is only generally recited, and like a processor and memory, are merely generic computer components applying the abstract idea (including routine data gathering/ mental process), or alternatively the scanner can be a function/ performed by a person manually looking over (scanning) a document. Though scanning/ reading/ imaging with a particular generic device is not mental, it’s not a practical application because it is merely routing data gathering. The scanning, analyzing, obtaining, determining, and processing steps are analogous to the concepts performed by a merchant who is presented an ID/ license by a customer who wants to buy alcohol or restricted goods wherein a merchant would look at the id/ license, analyze it to make sure it’s acceptable, a location is obtained by the merchant location, and the merchant determines whether to first rules associated with the jurisdiction (age restriction) and second rules associated with the location (liquor store owner personally verifies ID as valid) and limits use of portions of the id/ license based on the restrictions (such as allowing or not allowing a transaction). These steps in the recited claim are merely performed by a processor and generic computing device. Additionally, the permitting authorization can be seen as mental steps (see PTAB decision page 9 of 11517336 relating to getting data and limiting data), and 13467731 and 13672611 which are both abstract ideas for authorizing payments/ economic practices. Other than reciting the generic computing elements, nothing precludes the steps to be performed in the human mind/ or seen as the generic computerization of mental steps.
Additionally, this is automating a manual process (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I. not an improvement to computer functionality. iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Re the imitation of restricting includes reducing the information as scanned thereby forming reduced identification information, the Examiner notes that such limitations again are merely following rules (organized human activity per MEPE 2106.04a2.ii), and is merely applying rules to the data, and/or similar to redacting or merely ignoring/ not using information that is either part of the abstract idea of post solution activity that can be done mentally (pen and paper), similar to how receipts have redacted data, wherein redacting us seen as organized human activity such as that done by courts/ legislative bodies and is not an improvement, and can be done mentally/ by humans.
Re the limitations of using to authorize a transaction and limiting storage to exclude prohibited portions, such limitations are insignificant post solution activity, such as storing in a record/ memory. This goes along with the abstract idea/ is part of the abstract idea of decision of the rule. Limiting storage is similar in that it is deciding what to save and saving it, as merely insignificant post solution activity. Stripe/ Chip readers/ imagers are generic computer elements performing generic computer functions as it pertains to data gathering of the abstract idea.
The additional elements are merely generic computer elements, and are used to merely apply the abstract idea and thus do not integrate into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limitations on the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely specify details/ extra solution activity of the abstract idea and are not significantly more.
Re the limitations of restricting the use of the portions, the Examiner notes this is still part of the automating a manual process that the merchant would perform anyways. It is merely following an economic practice that the merchant would have done so conventionally, such as following rules and regulations. Prohibiting storage/ use / dissemination is seen as insignificant post solution activity because it merely follows the abstract rules and applies it. Furthermore, it is an economic practice a merchant would follow so it is part of the automating a manual activity and is not an improvement to computer functionality, as the rules would restrict how the prohibited portions are used because they would not be used when the merchant does not have the portions passing the first or second rules for performing a transaction (a fake ID is presented). Prohibiting storage is insignificant post solution activity. The above explanation applies to the independent claims 35 and 56-58. The dependent claims merely specify further details of the abstract idea such as the types of instruments the data comes from (types of cards), types of generic/ routine computer components to gather the data from (types of readers, GPS, etc. which are generic tools to apply the abstract idea), insignificant post solution activity (storing, determining uses for the document, performing a transaction, verifying a user, enabling access, and are rejected at least based on their dependency. Determining rules and following rules again falls under organized human activity as discussed above, being implemented by generic computer components.
Re the limitations to the independent claims which recite the prohibited portions are prohibited from use int determining compliance to authorize a transaction
Re the limitation that “reduced identification information” is formed, this is seen as part of the abstract idea as following rules/ regulations, or alternatively, could be seen as insignificant post solution activity. Redacting us seen as organized human activity such as that done by courts/ legislative bodies and is not an improvement, and can be done mentally/ by humans.
Even further, by way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types." 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. Thus collecting and manipulation of data is abstract.
Re the newly added limitation of the optical scanner and network, this is generic computer components performing generic computer functions such as data gathering.
Re the newly added limitation of “physical” location determined using GPS/ IP address/ manual entry/ record/ configuration, this falls under mental processes again. A specific physical (unique) sensor arrangement that is anything other than generic computer components performing routine data gathering is not specifically.
Claims 36-39 merely recited types of documents, which does not provide a practical application is merely specifying details of the data.
Claim 40 recites scanning which is routine data gathering, or can alternatively be seen as mental steps by a generic computer.
Claim 46 falls under mental steps/ generic data processing such as results of examining data/ documents.
Claim 47 recites storing of data , wherein the collecting, analyzing, and displaying data is abstract, “are directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner” are claims to abstract ideas. In re Killian, No. 21-2113, 2022 WL 3589496 at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2022); see also Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 48 recites restricting/ redacting, which is following rules, which can be seen as mental steps, as discussed above.
Re claims 49-51, these limitations are drawn to completion of the abstract idea/ organized human activity and/ or insignificant post solution activity, resulting from the application of the generic components to the environment.
Re claim 54, the limitations are drawn to rules which are mental concepts/ organized human activity.
Re claim 55, authentication is mental steps.
Re claims 56-58, these are drawn to different generic computer components but are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Thus, the pending claims are ineligible under 101.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 35-40, 42, 46-51,53, and 55-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messina (US 20050131829) in view of Khan (US 20150341370).
Re claim 35, Messina teaches:
An optical document scanner to acquire displayed or reflected information (30, 32, 34 and FIG. 1+), memory storing one or more computer executable instructions (FIG. 1+); and a processor (12, FIG. 1+) configured to execute the one or more computer executable instructions to perform operations including at least:
Scanning an identification document using the document scanner to acquire identification information (FIG. 1+);
Analyzing the identification document to identify a jurisdiction that issued the identification document (FIG. 2, Table 2-3, and paragraph [0029] + which teaches that the jurisdiction information is read into the CPU based on the format such as AAMVA, NAFTA, etc. as per paragraph [0003]+);
Determining a location of where the document is scanned is interpreted as the scanning itself being performed at a specific location at which there are restrictions on activities, wherein the Examiner notes it would have been obvious for the system to determine/ (know/ provide) its location for its intended use/ purpose as authorizing such a purchase at that location. For example, as paragraph [0004]+ teaches casinos, movie theaters, etc. for age restricted purchases/access, it would have been obvious for the system to determine a location of where the scanning occurs (a type of identifier such as for record keeping/ logging purposes similar to how cash register receipts include location information such as store location, register #, etc.). Also, determining a location associated with the identification document indicative of where the identification document was scanned and a proposed use of the identification document (paragraph [0036]+ teaches receiving jurisdictional ages and determining if the legal age requirements are met by the license, and though silent, given such teachings, it would have been obvious to determine a location, that location being that which the document/ license is being scanned/ read, in order to determine whether or not the age requirements is met, for example, by comparing to a determined location, such as when there is alcohol being purchased, it would have been obvious via configuration or manual entry into the system that the location is the USA wherein the age requirement is 21), as the Examiner notes that the :”location” has not been specifically recited to preclude the above interpretations;
Re the limitations of determining based partly on a purpose, one or more first rules (restrictions) with the jurisdiction and one or more second rules (restrictions) associated with the location and removing one or more prohibited portions of the identification of information in compliance with the at least one first and second restrictions, the Examiner notes that FIG. 3+ teaches such limitations via the license format, jurisdiction format, legal age checks, and background checks wherein these rules/ restrictions are interpreted as associated with the jurisdiction and the location (within the jurisdiction).
Re the limitation that the first or second rules define one or more portions that are prohibited from being retained, used in determining compliance to authorize a transaction, or disseminated, and restricting their use, the Examiner notes Messina at FIG. 3 wherein if a license format answer is “NO” , the jurisdiction format is prevented from use because an error message is generated. If the jurisdiction format answer is “NO” then legal age information is prevented from being used because of an error message being displayed, which is interpreted as prohibited portions not being used to authorize the transaction, because a format is not be so that subsequent data portions cannot be used to determine compliance, and these subsequent data sections are prevented from being detained as the transaction is not processed and saved at 186 if an error message is generated.
Messina further teaches processing identification information associated with the identification document in compliance with the rules associated with the jurisdiction, location, or the proposed use (paragraph [0069]+ and as discussed above wherein the information is processed in compliance with the rules such as for alcohol, tobacco, gambling, credit cards, etc.). Messina teaches saving error information with date and time, but is silent to explicitly reciting limiting storage of the prohibited portions. However, the Examiner notes that as error information is not specified, it would have been obvious to not save all data (prohibited portions) as a matter of design variation, such as to only save basic information for storage reduction, for example, as what data to save for a failed transaction would involve only routine skill in the art based on the desires of the system and information therein.
Nonetheless, Khan teaches (FIG. 2) first and second rules associated with the jurisdiction and location (240, 250, 255, 260, 270, 272, 278, etc.) Though Messina has been relied upon above for determining the location (is the jurisdiction), Khan teaches the use of GPS location to the processor (paragraph [0142]). Additionally, Khan teaches that though identification information of the face is scanned (paragraph [0150]+ which teaches mapping a facial image to compare it to a database but does not teach that it is stored, thus it is excluded from storage). This reads on excluding a prohibited portion from being stored.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for ensuring compliance with rules/ regulations with a location within a jurisdiction for security/ authenticity purposes, and for comparing facial images to those in a database for accuracy, but not storing the acquired images such as for privacy/ security concerns.
Re the limitation that the system is used to authorize a transaction, this has been discussed above via the completion of age restricted transactions.
Re the limitation of “restricting” use in compliance with one of the restrictions, this is taught above via an invalid license/ invalid security features not being acceptable.
Re the limitation of “wherein the restricting includes reducing the identification information as scanned” thereby forming reduced identification information, as discussed above, the invalid license/ invalid security features not being acceptable is seen as restrictions. As the flow chart of FIG. 3+ of Messina does not complete when the restriction is met, this is interpreted as reducing the information scanned, as the subsequent information that is not being used in the flowchart as a result of the restriction, is not used, and therefore the scanned information is reduced since it is not used.
Re the newly added limitation of the optical scanner being networked, though Messina is silent to a network, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to be network connected to permit remote access and use across different areas, especially as paragraph [0023]+ teaches wireless/ remote connectivity. Further, Khan teaches internet enabled (paragraph [0034]+), which is seen as an obvious expedient.
Re the newly added limitation that the physical location is determined by a GPS data/IP address/ record/ manual entry, the Examiner notes that Khan teaches GPS 262 (FIG. 10) which is interpreted as GPS data. Additionally, Messina (paragraph [0078]+ which teaches a plurality of locations such as ports of entry, check points, vending machines, post offices, buildings, etc., wherein it would have been obvious that in such locations, that the device be programmed (manual entry/ device configuration/ record) to know the rules to apply based on the physical location a record/ manual entry/ device configuration can broadly be interpreted as being taught (see paragraph [0040]+ wherein a jurisdictional segment is loaded, thus determining a physical location (the jurisdiction) by use of a record or manual entry or device configuration. Thus, the physical location is interpreted as being determined via the loading of software pertaining to the physical location at where the scanning is performed. The claim does not explicitly recite a network of GPS sensors as physically distinct locations that send their unique GPS coordinates to a remotely located processor which determine the location and corresponding rules based on that determined physical location, for example.
Re claim 36, FIG. 2A+ teaches such limitations. Khan teaches such limitations also in FIG. 2+, wherein it would have been obvious to combine for scanning / authenticating known security documents.
Re claim 37, the limitations have been discussed above re FIG. 1+. Khan also teaches such limitations (FIG. 2+) wherein it would have been obvious to combine for scanning known data formats for security documents. Re claim 38, the limitations have been discussed above re FIG. 1+. Khan teaches such limitations (paragraph [0014]+) as an obvious expedient for known type of scanning devices.
Re claim 39, the limitations have been discussed above re FIG. 1+ and as discussed above.
Re claim 40, the Examiner notes that the apparatus/ system of the prior art is for authentication of users via identification processing. As such it would have been obvious for the process to determine to scan a document, as part of the process, for the proposed use, such as authenticating of individuals.
Re claim 42, scanner 30 converts the information on the card via OCR (paragraph [0023]+) and FIG. 2A+ teaches such types of information. Imaging has also been discussed above re Khan
Re claim 46, age restriction has been discussed above.
Re claim 47, storing is taught (paragraph [0051]+). Excluding prohibited portions has been discussed above re Khan, for authenticating against a database without storing acquired data (facial) each time. It would have been obvious to storage some data and not others (not facial images acquired from a card) such as for personal security or data storage limitations.
Re claim 48, as discussed above, the non-storing of the facial images is interpreted as removing/ redacting and alternatively, the removing of the document information/ redacting can be interpreted as upon the validation of such elements in accordance with the rules, they are “removed” from comparison/ removed from blocking the transaction as the transaction can be authorized
Re claim 49, as discussed above, and paragraph [0069]+ enables a transaction such as alcohol purchases. Khan teaches such limitations (paragraph [0073]+).
Re claim 50, paragraph [0078]+ teaches physical access.
Re claim 51, verifying an individual has been disuse above, such as verifying an age. Khan teaches verifying an individual as well (abstract+).
Re claim 53, the limitations have been discussed above, wherein the age is interpreted as the specified priority for age restricted transactions. The prior art above teaches a plurality of rules such as the various types of data matching that occurs for order for a transaction to be authorized at a location within a jurisdiction.
Re claim 55, the age authorization for purchases is interpreted as authenticating an individual.
Re claims 56-58, the limitations have been discussed above, wherein the examiner notes that’s magnetic stripe and chip cards are obvious expedients for data storage/ security with a card. Further, Khan teaches such limitations (paragraph [0044]+ via the card credential. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings to have a card with more data storage and security. The newly added limitations have been discussed above re claim 35.
Claim 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messina/ Khan, as discussed above, in view of Eisen et al. (US 20070183000).
Re claim 48, Messina is silent to the redacting.
Eisen et al. teaches such redacting for security (paragraph [0002] + and FIG. 4).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security/ confidentiality and reducing data storage requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the rejections and reasoning applied above. .
Re the 101 rejection, the Examiner maintains the rejection, being mental steps that can be done with the aid of pen/ paper or a humans mind. Even further, the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims focus on an abstract idea and not an improvement to technology technological field as it is drawn to improving the processing of identification checks using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea (processor, scanner, memory). Further, the Examine notes that (“Phenomena of nature. . ., mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). And mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (automating) or using generic computer components as tools, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking the use of the exception to a particular environment or field are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Examiner notes that FIG. 3 of Messina teaches the rule prevents prohibited portions of the information from being used as recited, because if the flow chart fails at license format, then jurisdiction format is prohibited in being used because an error message is generated. If Jurisdiction format fails, then legal age is not used because an error message is generated. Additionally, data is not retained when there is an error message as would be part of 186 when there is no errors.
Re the newly added limitations that restricting includes reducing the identification information “as scanned”, as the flow chart of FIG. 3+ of Messina does not complete when the restriction is met, this is interpreted as reducing the information scanned, as the subsequent information that is not being used in the flowchart as a result of the restriction, is not used, and therefore the scanned information is “reduced” since it is not used and the document was scanned.
Additional Remarks
The Examiner notes that locating determining for a scan/ transaction is known in the art for record keeping purposes as discussed in the action above, and taught by US 5748908 which at step 7 teaches that the receipt record includes the data, time, terminal number, merchant name/ address, where such teachings are interpreted to read on determining a location, such as where a transaction occurs, as analogous to the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-9pm.
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, Steve Paik can be reached on 5712722404. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2887