DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Oct. 5, 2025, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing (preferred) using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is highly encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Examiner is available for interviews, generally: M–F, 10 a.m.–4:00 p.m., EST. For any AIR, Applicant should expect an email response within 24-hours with an electronic interview appointment for one of their chosen date(s)/time(s) and web-based collaboration tool instructions. If there is a conflict, Examiner will reach out by email.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Oct. 5, 2025, has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14–22 remain pending and examined with Claims 1, 9, and 14 in independent form.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14 are presently amended.
No Claims are presently cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Feb. 13, 2020, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination. No new matter was entered.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant argues the claims recite “a technological improvement. In particular, the claim specifies that the Automated Motor Vehicle Department Transaction System (AMVDTS) communicates with government databases through an application programming interface (API) using a secure proxy microservice. This architecture improves the operation of networked computer systems by enabling secure queries of external government databases without exposing underlying state records. The claim also recites automatic detection of document quality using image analysis, application of optical character recognition (OCR) for extracting text from uploaded documents, and automated fraud detection by cross-referencing heterogeneous databases. These features represent specific improvements to data processing and document validation technology, not mere automation of manual practices.” Applicant’s Reply at 10–11. Dependent Claim 4 recites time-based one time password (TOTP) and Dependent Claim 8 recites a “secure electronic gateway,” for processing payments. Both features improve security and thus, are eligible. Applicant’s Reply at 11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
But for the recitation of the generic computer equipment, the claims describe automating motor vehicle services, a manual method long prevalent in our system before the advent of the computer1. “[M]ere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. In those cases, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017); MPEP § 2106.05(a). Here, the claims recite the mere automation of manual processes of existing MVD services using generic (exemplary) computers. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 22, 26, 28, 31. Applicant admits the claims merely “use” facial recognition, optical character recognition (OCR), geolocation, and image analysis in their known way and. Applicant’s Reply filed May 14, 2025, at 13. The facial recognition, OCR, geolocation, and image analysis software is developed outside the scope of the claims and again, merely “used” to automate MVD services. Thus, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Regarding amendments to Claims 4 and 8, “Improving security can be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem.” CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC, 15 F.4th 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Here, the claimed technique is not specific and does not depart from earlier approaches. Examiner finds that processing a payment through a secure electronic payment gateway are well understood routine and conventional in the art based on Applicant’s own disclose. The specification makes a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further finds the TOTP lacks support under § 112 (a).
Accordingly, the specification does not provide sufficient details of a technological improvement that would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Alternatively, even if the specification sets forth an improvement, it is done in a “conclusory manner.” Id. Accordingly, Examiner finds the claim does not improve technology but rather recites an abstract idea exception. Id. Any improvement is in the ineligible abstract idea itself. MPEP § 2106.05(I). Computers are invoked merely as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The abstract idea cannot provide the practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4, 9, 11, and 14–22: Independent Claims 9 and 14 were amended to recite, “wherein validation further includes two-stage multi-factor authentication comprising a biometric match in combination with a time-based one-time password (TOTP) generated by the AMVDTS and transmitted via a secure channel to the mobile device,“ where the italicized limitation is prohibited new matter. MPEP § 2163.06; 35 U.S.C. § 132; In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Applicant does not indicate were support for the amendments is located or that no new matter was entered. See MPEP § 714.02 (“Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Applicant’s Specification discloses “Validation of customer identity can include utilizing 2-stage authentication via code entry obtained from an electronic message received on the mobile device.” Spec. ¶ 30. Examiner distinguished what is claimed, a biometric match in combination with a time-based one-time password (TOTP) generated by the AMVDTS and transmitted via a secure channel to the mobile device, with support in Spec. ¶ 30. For examination purposes, “[E]xaminer [will] consider the subject matter added to the claim in making rejections based on prior art since the new matter rejection may be overcome by applicant.” MPEP § 2163.06. Claim 4 is rejected similarly for reciting a similar limitation at issue in Independent Claims 9 and 14. All Dependent Claims to Independent Claims 9 and 14 are rejected based on their dependence to Independent Claims 9 and 14.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14–22: All Independent Claims were amended to recite, “the AMVDTS communicates with the remote server through an application programming interface (API) using a secure proxy microservice configured to query the government records without exposing underlying state databases,” which Examiner finds is prohibited new matter. MPEP § 2163.06; 35 U.S.C. § 132; In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Applicant does not indicate were support for the amendments is located or that no new matter was entered. See MPEP § 714.02 (“Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Applicant’s Specification discloses, “The AMVDTS can query the state for latest fees for services required via API upon successful state document validation.” Spec. ¶ 30. For examination purposes, “[E]xaminer [will] consider the subject matter added to the claim in making rejections based on prior art since the new matter rejection may be overcome by applicant.” MPEP § 2163.06. All Dependent Claims are rejected based on their dependence to one of the Independent Claims.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14–22: All Independent Claims were amended to recite, the AMVDTS further performing automated image analysis to detect document quality issues including blur, glare, or incompleteness and conducting fraud detection by cross-referencing the extracted text against heterogeneous government and third-party databases, where the italicized limitation is prohibited new matter. MPEP § 2163.06; 35 U.S.C. § 132; In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Applicant does not indicate were support for the amendments is located or that no new matter was entered. See MPEP § 714.02 (“Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Applicant’s Specification discloses “optical character recognition (OCR)” but does not disclose “blur, glare, or incompleteness” as claimed. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 31. Likewise, Applicant’s Specification discloses “preventing fraud” but does not describe how it does it. Spec. ¶ 31. “[E]xaminer [will] consider the subject matter added to the claim in making rejections based on prior art since the new matter rejection may be overcome by applicant.” MPEP § 2163.06. All Dependent Claims are rejected based on their dependence to one of the Independent Claims.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14–22: All Independent Claims were amended to recite, “wherein the AMVDTS verifies kiosk availability by receiving real-time operational status reports from the kiosk,” which Examiner finds is prohibited new matter. MPEP § 2163.06; 35 U.S.C. § 132; In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Applicant does not indicate were support for the amendments is located or that no new matter was entered. See MPEP § 714.02 (“Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Examiner is unable to locate support based on a keyword search. “[E]xaminer [will] consider the subject matter added to the claim in making rejections based on prior art since the new matter rejection may be overcome by applicant.” MPEP § 2163.06. All Dependent Claims are rejected based on their dependence to one of the Independent Claims.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14–22: All Independent Claims were amended to recite, “the MVD kiosk printing only after verifying a digitally signed transaction record transmitted from the AMVDTS to ensure authenticity and prevent tampering,” which Examiner finds is prohibited new matter. MPEP § 2163.06; 35 U.S.C. § 132; In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Applicant does not indicate were support for the amendments is located or that no new matter was entered. See MPEP § 714.02 (“Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Examiner is unable to locate support based on a keyword search. “[E]xaminer [will] consider the subject matter added to the claim in making rejections based on prior art since the new matter rejection may be overcome by applicant.” MPEP § 2163.06. All Dependent Claims are rejected based on their dependence to one of the Independent Claims.
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, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14–22 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1, 4, and 8; and Claims 9 and 11, both recite “methods” and are therefore, each directed to the statutory category of “a process.” Claims 14–18, 21, and 22 recite “a system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of “a machine.”
Representative Claim
Claim 14 is representative [“Rep. Claim 14”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations2 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 14. A system for electronically and remotely providing motor vehicle department (MVD) related services to mobile device users, comprising: an automated motor vehicle department transaction system (AMVDTS) including a control server and access to at least one database containing records,
[A1] the control server being programmed with a secure proxy microservice for interfacing with government databases over an application programming interface (API) while preventing exposure of the underlying databases;
[B] a mobile device using a mobile application configuring the mobile device to provide a customer with secure and encrypted access to the AMVDTS via a data network, wherein the mobile device is further programmed to;
[C] validate an identity of the customer in cooperation with the AMVDTS via facial recognition [software]
[C1] wherein an image of a face of the customer is compared with government records including identification card photographs stored in a remote server, and
[C2] wherein validation further includes two-stage multi-factor authentication comprising a biometric match in combination with a time-based one-time password (TOTP) generated by the AMVDTS and transmitted via a secure channel to the mobile device;
[D] enable the customer to select a transaction at the mobile device from a list of services provided by the AMVDTS via the mobile application including no less than driver's licensing, vehicle registrations, and vehicle title transfers;
[E] present instructions from the AMVDTS for a service selected by the customer at the mobile device in a step- by-step fashion electronically via the mobile device and
[E1] the mobile application to enable the customer to complete and validate a transaction with the AMVDTS;
[F] enable the customer to provide customer data including documents regarding the transaction via the mobile device over the data network to the AMVDTS,
[F1] wherein the AMVDTS validates the pertinent data including the documents utilizing validation data resources accessible by the AMVDTS further including third party records accessible over the data network from a remote server, and
[F2] wherein optical character recognition is used by the AMVDTS to extract text from the documents
[F3] the AMVDTS further performing automated image analysis to detect document quality issues including blur, glare, or incompleteness and conducting fraud detection by cross-referencing the extracted text against heterogeneous government and third-party databases; and
[G] enable functional MVD kiosk location determination by the mobile device and the AMVDTS,
[G1] based on the location of the mobile device in a community,
[G2] for printing of official documents at an MVD kiosk following processing of the valid payment by the AMVDTS,
[G3] wherein the location of the mobile device is determined utilizing one or more of GPS, data network communication, signal strength and triangulation with respect to the mobile device, and
[G4] wherein the AMVDTS verifies kiosk availability by receiving real-time operational status reports from the kiosk.
[H] rendering the official documents at the MVD kiosk with a printer associated with the MVD kiosk, the MVD kiosk printing only after verifying a digitally signed transaction record transmitted from the AMVDTS to ensure authenticity and prevent tampering.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 14 recites “providing motor vehicle department (MVD) related services” in the preamble, Limitation A, which recites a “long-standing commercial practice3” and “legal interaction” under the organizing human activity exception because providing motor vehicle department services, such as “driver's licensing, vehicle registrations, and vehicle title transfers” as recited by the claims, Limitation D, recites “agreements in the form of contracts” (title transfers of ownership) and/or “legal obligations” between two people, the driver and the State. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Limitations B–H are the required steps and data inputs required to “provid[e] motor vehicle department (MVD) related services” and therefore, recites the same exception. Id.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 14 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A system comprising an automated motor vehicle department transaction system (AMVDTS) including a control server and at least one database; microservice [software]; API; underlying databases; a mobile device using a mobile application; a secure and encrypted data network; facial recognition [software], a [first] remote server; “electronically” characterization of step-by-step fashion; a [second] remote server; optical character recognition [software]; a server; GPS, data network communication, signal strength and triangulation; a printer; an MVD kiosk; two-stage multi-factor authentication comprising a biometric match in combination with a time-based one-time password (TOTP); automated image analysis to detect document quality issues including blur, glare, or incompleteness.
Regarding the system comprising an automated motor vehicle department transaction system (AMVDTS) including a control server and at least one database; microservice [software]; API; underlying databases; a mobile device using a mobile application; a secure and encrypted data network; facial recognition [software], a [first] remote server; “electronically” characterization of step-by-step fashion; a [second] remote server; optical character recognition [software]; a server; GPS, data network communication, signal strength and triangulation; a printer; an MVD kiosk; two-stage multi-factor authentication comprising a biometric match in combination with a time-based one-time password (TOTP); automated image analysis to detect document quality issues including blur, glare, or incompleteness, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶ 22 (“System 100 can provide customers with an ability to create a remote MVD transaction using a data file 117 containing records provided from a mobile entity such as, for example, a wireless hand held device 101 or a kiosk 201. … Note that records are capable of being exported into a file 117 in various formats … and can be manipulated and can be stored to a database 111 when accessed or provided on line via network 125. The wireless hand held device 101 may be, for example, a cellular telephone or other mobile communication device … Communications can be wired or wireless.”); ¶ 21 (“a network 125 (e.g., the Internet, cellular network, GSM, CDMA, HSPDA, Wi-Fi, WiMAX, LAN, 3G, 4G, 5G, L TE, Bluetooth, etc.)”); ¶ 21 (describing facial recognition using “3rd party identity validation services,” which is interpreted as any available facial recognition software know in the art) ¶ 31 (“3rd party facial recognition SLA [service level agreement] contracts”); ¶ 23 (“A application 102 (e.g., MVD Services APP) can be downloaded into a mobile device 101 to enable a customer to access to the AMVDTS and an ability to navigate using user interface 105 the services that can be provided by an AMVDTS over at least one of between the mobile device 101 and server 110 via a data network 125, and via wireless connection between a mobile device 101 and a kiosk 201 with connection to server 110.”); ¶ 21 (“System 100 [AMVDTS] can be configured to include a control server 110 that communicates with a storage unit 111 (e.g., memory, database, etc.).”); ¶ 21 (Data provided by customers or retrieved by the MVD agency/contractor can be cross referenced with external (i.e., government agency and third party) data sources via databases 116 that can be available via the remote server 115”); ¶¶ 30, 31 (“Optical character recognition can be used by the AMVDTS to extract text from the documents.”); ¶ 25 (“The mobile device is shown communicating with the kiosk 201 and servers 110/115.”); ¶ 24 (Accessibility can also include an ability to locate a kiosk with respect to a user's location within a community as can be determined by GPS or network connectivity of a user's mobile device 101.”); ¶ 26 (“A location of the mobile device 101 can be determined by GPS or data network communication network connectivity (e.g., signal strength, triangulation)”); ¶¶ 25, 30 (“Documents can be printed by the system upon locating an available data rendering device (e.g., kiosk with a scanner and/or printer).”)
The generic processor, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶ 11. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
Regarding the mobile application, facial recognition [software], optical character recognition [software], microservice [software] and API, Applicant’s Specification again, does not describe it so Examiner assumes it could be created in any known way using any known technique. The application and software itself are created outside the scope of the claims and as claimed, is merely used. This describes a solution described at the level of a “generic black box” for performing the claimed functions, previously performed manually, and reads neatly on “use a computer” to do it. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding the two-stage multi-factor authentication comprising a biometric match in combination with a time-based one-time password (TOTP) and automated image analysis to detect document quality issues including blur, glare, or incompleteness, these limitations are recited at ahigh-level of generality and may be performed manually. For example, a human could visually recognize a person (biometric match) and provide a shared known password. Likewise, a person can perform “image analysis” to detect the claimed document quality issues. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
The claims describe the AMVDTS having access to a database (transmitting and receiving data) and a database storing records (Limitation A). The claims further recite the mobile device and mobile device application providing secure access to the AMVDTS via a data network (transmitting and receiving data) (Limitation B). These limitations merely invoke computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Limitations C–H describe the additional elements performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
The claims recite the mobile device and application “validat[ing] the identity of the customer” “in cooperation with the AMVDTS via facial recognition” by comparing the customer’s facial image with government records (Limitation C, C1). Examiner interprets the mobile device and application “cooperating” with the AMVDTS as claimed as merely sending and receiving data, such as data indicating “a match” or “no match” of the customer’s identity, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). The functions of the AMVDTS “comparing” a facial image of the customer with government records happens outside the scope of the claims and is not performed by the mobile device and application, as recited by the claims. See, Limitation B (“the mobile device is further programmed to: listing Limitations C–H”) The mobile device and application merely receives the result of the comparing from the AMVDTS. Therefore, the “comparing” function is not positively recited. MPEP § 2115 (“A claim is only limited by positively recited elements”). Even if the comparing limitation were positively recited, the comparing limitation, as claimed, covers any solution to comparing data with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1). Further, under Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011), “a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind,” as here. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). A practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
The claims recite the mobile device and application “enable[ing] the customer to select a transaction … from a list of services” (Limitation D) and “present[ing] instructions for a service selected by the customer in a step-by-step fashion (Limitation E),” which are both interpreted as displaying information of a particular type and receiving a selection. The displaying of data covers any solution to displaying data with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and both limitations invoke computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, transmit, and display data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1), (f)(2). The displaying step falls to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements or a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group). Further, requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claims recite the mobile device and application “enable[ing] the customer to provide pertinent data … over the data network to the AMVDTS, (Limitation F)” which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). The claims further recite the AMVDTS “validat[ing] the pertinent data” using “validation data resources” that include “third party records” and “complet[ing] the transaction” when payment is made and optical character recognition is used by the AMVDTS to extract text from the documents” (Limitations F, F1, F2, F3). For the same reason as indicated for Limitation C, these functions are not performed by the mobile device/application as recited by the claims with the functions happening outside of the scope of the claims, and thus, not positively recited. MPEP § 2115 (“A claim is only limited by positively recited elements”). Even if the data validation, completing limitations, and OCR limitations were positively recited, these limitations as claimed, cover any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
The claims recite the mobile device is “enable[ing] functional MVD kiosk location … based on the mobile device's location in a community … utilizing one or more GPS, data network communication, signal strength and triangulation with respect to the mobile device (Limitation G).” Under BRI, “GPS and data network communication” are interpreted as sending and receiving data of a particular type in some unspecific way to determine mobile device location using unspecified mathematical concepts. Similarly, “signal strength and triangulation with respect to the mobile device” are also interpreted under BRI as unknown mathematical concepts which determine the mobile device location. This amounts to functionally claiming a “black box” for how a mobile device location is determined and covers any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The MVD kiosk’s location is further determined by the mobile device in some unspecified way based on the “black box” functional location determination of the mobile device. This again covers any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Limitation H is insignificant post-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The printer is generic and rendering covers any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1). Therefore, the recitation of a generic computer and generic computer function are no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception and/or insignificant extra solution activity (i.e., data gathering) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f); MPEP § 2106.05(g). Limitation H also fails to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements, a practical application, or inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group).
Therefore, the claim, as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 14 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 1 and 9 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 14. Independent Claims 1 and 9 contain no additional limitations Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 9 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 14 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶ 32 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 11, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.)
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 14 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure4. Spec. ¶¶ 11, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements (i.e., system comprising an automated motor vehicle department transaction system (AMVDTS) including a control server and at least one database; microservice [software]; API; underlying databases; a mobile device using a mobile application; a secure and encrypted data network; facial recognition [software], a [first] remote server; “electronically” characterization of step-by-step fashion; a [second] remote server; optical character recognition [software]; a server; GPS, data network communication, signal strength and triangulation; a printer; an MVD kiosk; two-stage multi-factor authentication comprising a biometric match in combination with a time-based one-time password (TOTP); automated image analysis to detect document quality issues including blur, glare, or incompleteness.) are generic computer components. The Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, displaying, and processing (e.g., performing mathematical operations on) data, described in Limitations A–H are all normal functions of a generic computer.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 14 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 14 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 1 and 9 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 14. Independent Claims 1 and 9 contain no additional limitations. Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 9 also do not recite an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 4, 8, 11, and 15–18 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements not otherwise analyzed. Regarding Dependent Claims 4, 11, and 15, the 2-stage authentication via code entry “technique” is merely “used.” Applicant’s Specification does not describe it so Examiner assumes it is the well-known two-factor authentication (2FA) technique. Spec. ¶ 30. Thus, Applicant takes the position that this technique is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). Examiner finds the 2FA technique has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure and merely operates on the generic components. Spec. ¶ 30. Alternatively, Church et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0227128) (cited PTO-892) is prior art in the same authentication field of invention and additional evidence of the conventionality of 2FA. Church, ¶ 3 (“Two-factor authentication (2fa) is often used to authenticate users during sign-on.”); see also, ¶¶ 58, 59, Fig. 2. Regarding Dependent Claim 16, the timing of the 2FA occurring after an initial registration has also been recognized as “WURC” activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure and merely operates on the generic components. Alternatively, Church et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0227128) (cited PTO-892) is prior art in the same authentication field of invention and additional evidence of the conventionality of the timing of the 2FA occurring after registration. Church, Title (“Secure Device Registration for Multi-Factor Authentication”); see also, ¶¶ 43, 44, 45 (registration occurs before 2FA in step 88), Fig. 2. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(I); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14–22 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 14 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Examiner Statement of Prior Art—No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of Independent Claims. While some individual features of Independent Claims may be shown in the prior art of record—no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of Independent Claims. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are:
Thomson (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0058211) is pertinent because it discloses an mobile application and mobile device for transitions involving motor vehicles. Thomson, ¶¶ 9, 29.
Davis (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0273621) is pertinent because it discloses a variety of technologies that can be employed by state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs), and other agencies, e.g., to reduce customer wait time and otherwise improve customer satisfaction, to streamline workflow, and to enhance security.
McCauley (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0308906) is pertinent because it discloses systems and methods for updating a vehicle record maintained in an MVD database.
FOR: Int. Pat. Pub. No. WO 01/22317 A2 is pertinent because it discloses A system and method for online vehicle registration using interactive communication between the user and server to effectively result in a plate/document/article (e.g., license plate, sticker) order for production/distribution.
NPL: Easy and Free DMV Fee Lookup, 2019 is pertinent because it discloses California’s most trusted online vehicle registration service.
NPL: Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, 2019 is pertinent because it discloses interfaces of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (EST).
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Patrascu, Daniel “How the License Plate Was Introduced” Oct. 14, 2018 (The first vehicle registration occurred in 1893) (cited herein on PTO-892)
2 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
3 Patrascu, Daniel “How the License Plate Was Introduced” Oct. 14, 2018 (The first vehicle registration occurred in 1893) (cited herein on PTO-892).
4 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").