DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 24, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on November 24, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has: amended claims 1, 10 and 22; and added claim 25. Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-18 and 22-25 are now pending, have been examined, and currently stand rejected.
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 . 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 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.
Continuation
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 17/089,217, filed on November 4, 2020 and issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,575,516 on February 7, 2023, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 16/214,788, filed on December 10, 2018 and issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,848,476 on November 24, 2020, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 16/012,268, filed June 19, 2018 and issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,187,372 on January 22, 2019, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 15/265,938, filed September 15, 2016 and issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,027,647 on July 17, 2018, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/220,015, filed on September 17, 2015. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A.2.
Priority
Examiner notes that the effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. Any claim that only contains subject matter that is fully supported in compliance with the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, by the parent application of a CIP will have the effective filing date of the parent application. On the other hand, any claim that contains a limitation that is only supported as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, by the disclosure of the CIP application will have the effective filing date of the CIP application. See MPEP 2152.01.
In this instance, the disclosures of parent application(s): 62/220,015, 15/265,938, 16/012,268 and 16/214,788 all fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for one or more claims/limitations/elements of this application. Specifically, the 62/220,015, 15/265,938, 16/012,268 and 16/214,788 applications all fail to disclose the use of a “mobile device number” (e.g., a first mobile device number) or a “mobile number”. Examiner notes that the instant application and all of the parent applications disclose the use of a “mobile telephone number”, which is a specific/narrow type of a “mobile device number” or “mobile number.” However, only the 17/089,217 and the 17/177,387 applications/disclosures disclose the broader use of mobile identification/device numbers beyond that of a mobile telephone number. For example, the disclosure of the instant application indicates that “The mobile voting verification system may then query the user's device to provide the make and model of the user's device, which can be compared to device make and model information associated with the user in the mobile voting verification system.” Specification [0035]. Accordingly, the 17/089,217 and the 17/177,387 applications/disclosures contemplate the use of device/mobile numbers (e.g., a model number) beyond that of a telephone number in the verification process. Phrased differently, the 17/089,217 and the 17/177,387 applications are broader in scope because they expand upon the types of mobile device numbers, or mobile numbers, that could be used in the voter verification process.
Since the 62/220,015, 15/265,938, 16/012,268 and 16/214,788 applications all fail to provide adequate support or enablement for the broader use of use of “mobile device numbers” or “mobile numbers” in the voter verification process, independent claims 1, 10 and 22 are not entitled to the effective filing date of the 62/220,015, 15/265,938, 16/012,268 and 16/214,788 applications.
Additionally, the 62/220,015, 15/265,938, 16/012,268 and 16/214,788 applications all fail to disclose querying the mobile device to verify a make and model of the mobile device, and/or verifying a make and model of the mobile device. The 62/220,015, 15/265,938, 16/012,268 and 16/214,788 applications are completely silent with respect to a make and/or model of the mobile device. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 10 and 22 are not entitled to the effective filing date of the 62/220,015, 15/265,938, 16/012,268 and 16/214,788 applications.
Claims 2-8, 11-12, 14-18 and 23-24 are also not entitled to the effective filing date of the 62/220,015, 15/265,938, 16/012,268 and 16/214,788 applications due to their dependency on claim 1, 10 or 22. Accordingly, claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-18 and 22-24 have been given the effective filing date of the 17/089,217 application, which was filed on November 4, 2020.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on November 24, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,575,516 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham, III et al. (US 2019/0114861 A1) (“Durham”) in view of Biddulph (US 2005/0211778 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0004970 A1) (“Wang”) in view of Hoard et al. (US 2014/0096266 A1) (“Hoard”).
Regarding Claim 1: Durham discloses a mobile voting system comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in a memory, which when executed by said one or more processors perform steps comprising (See at least Durham [0057]):
receiving a voter verification request, said voter verification request including a first mobile device number associated with a mobile device from which the voter verification request was received (See at least Durham [0004]; [0008]; [0030]; [0033]; Fig. 2 step 200. Where a voter verification request is received, said voter verification request including a first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) associated with a mobile device from which the voter verification request was received.);
transmitting a first request containing said first mobile device number to a first server containing voter registration information (See at least Durham [0005]; [0008]; [0034]; Fig. 2 step 215. Where a first request (i.e., a request, e.g., first request) containing said first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) is transmitted to a first server (i.e., voter registrar server) containing voter registration information.), and
receiving a first response containing information stored in the first server that corresponds to the first mobile device number (See at least Durham [0005]; [0009-0010]; [0035]; Fig. 2 step 220. Where a first response (i.e., confirmation signal, e.g., first response) containing information (e.g., other voter bibliographic information from the voter record, such as the voter's name, address, birthdate, and the like) stored in the first server (i.e., stored in the voter registrar server) that corresponds to the first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) is received.);
transmitting a second request containing said first mobile device number to a second server containing mobile carrier information (See at least Durham [0006]; [0011]; [0037]; Fig. 2 step 225. Where a second request (i.e., request, e.g., second request) containing said first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) is transmitted to a second server (i.e., mobile carrier billing system) containing mobile carrier information.), and
receiving a second response containing information stored in the second server, which information corresponds to the first mobile device number (See at least Durham [0006]; [0011-0012]; [0037-0038]; Fig. 2 step 230. Where a second response (i.e., confirmation signal, e.g., second response) containing information (e.g., the name of, and optionally other identifying information relating to, the account holder associated with the received mobile telephone number) stored in the second server (i.e., in the mobile carrier billing system), which information corresponds to the first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) is received.);
determining that an identity of the voter is verified based on information received in the first response corresponding to information received in the second response (See at least Durham [0012]; [0038]. Where it is determined that an identity of the voter is verified based on information received in the first response corresponding to information received in the second response (i.e., based on information from the carrier billing system matching the information from the voter registrar server.);
determining that a network address of the mobile device corresponds to an approved mobile-carrier domain and that a geographic location of the mobile device is within an approved location (See at least Durham [0031]; [0043] “the mobile voter verification system may also determine whether the verification request originated from an approved geographic location. For example, the verification request may include the location of the voter's mobile phone or device at the time the verification request is sent. The mobile voter verification system may determine whether the location of the mobile phone or device indicated in the verification request matches a location contained in a list of approved locations.”; [0053] “prior to providing the voter with a mobile ballot, the voter verification system may also verify that the voter's mobile phone has an internet protocol (IP) address that corresponds to an approved carrier domain”.);
determining that metadata associated with at least one of a voter image and an identification image indicates capture within a predetermined time window preceding the voter verification request (See at least Durham [0031]; [0040] “the mobile voting verification system according to an exemplary embodiment may determine how long ago the photograph of the user or user's identification card was taken by comparing the metadata of the photograph (s) contained in the verification request with the time at which the verification request was received. […] If the difference between the time the verification request was received and the time at which the user photograph was taken exceeds a predetermined threshold, the mobile voter verification system may determine that the verification request should be denied.”.);
verifying that a predetermined plurality of independent verification factors are satisfied (See at least Durham [0031]; [0039]; [0043-0046]. Durham discloses verifying that a predetermined plurality of independent verification factors (e.g., facial recognition, geographic location verification, fingerprint verification, retinal scan verification, verifying a numerical code that was sent to the mobile device via a text message, etc.) are satisfied.);
in response to determining that the identity of the voter is verified, and verifying that the predetermined plurality of independent verification factors are satisfied, transmitting, directly or indirectly, a link to the mobile device of the voter, wherein the link is time-limited and specific to the mobile device configured to provide a mobile ballot corresponding to the voter's identity, the link being bound to the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number, automatically expires outside a predetermined time window (See at least Durham Abstract; [0013-0014]; [0022]; [0031]; [0039]; [0043-0046]; [0048-0049]; [0052-0054]; Fig. 2 step 245; Durham Claim 1 “wherein the link is configured to provide a mobile ballot corresponding to the voter's identity”. Where in response to determining that the identity of the voter is verified (i.e., the verification request should be granted), and verifying that the predetermined plurality of independent verification factors (e.g., facial recognition, geographic location verification, fingerprint verification, retinal scan verification, verifying a numerical code that was sent to the mobile device via a text message, etc.) are satisfied, transmitting, directly or indirectly, a link to the mobile device of the voter, wherein the link is time-limited (i.e., “the link may expire 5 minutes after it is transmitted to the mobile phone, although other expiration periods may be used”) and specific to the mobile device configured to provide a mobile ballot corresponding to the voter's identity (i.e., indicated, at least, by the fact that the link: is transmitted to a specific mobile device of the voter (e.g., via an SMS message); expires after a predetermined length of time after it was transmitted to the mobile device of the voter; requires a numerical code sent to the mobile device of the voter to be inputted into the system; and/or displays a particular/proper mobile ballot based on the address and/or identity provided in the verification request), the link being bound to the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number, automatically expires outside a predetermined time window.);
receiving selections made by the voter on the mobile ballot from the mobile device (See at least Durham [0051]; [0054]; [0056]. Where selections (i.e., voter’s selections, e.g., selections on the final/completed ballot) made by the voter on the mobile ballot are received from the mobile device (i.e., “allows the voter to cast the voter's ballot from the voter's mobile device”).);
receiving an electronic image of the mobile ballot (See at least Durham [0056]. Where an electronic image of the mobile ballot (i.e., final ballot) is received (e.g., received by the voter verification system).); and
providing the electronic image of the mobile ballot upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot (See at least Durham [0056]. Where the electronic image of the mobile ballot (i.e., final ballot) is provided (e.g., to the voter’s mobile device) upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot (i.e., upon receiving a request to provide a copy of the voter’s final ballot).); and
updating a database storing election results reflecting selections of a plurality of voters on a plurality of mobile ballots based on the received selections (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Where a database (e.g., a database of the carrier’s mobile voting system and/or a database of the voter verification system) storing election results reflecting selections (i.e., voter selections) of a plurality of voters (i.e., voters) on a plurality of mobile ballots based on the received selections is updated (e.g., updated by the storing process).).
Durham does not explicitly disclose but Biddulph teaches:
generating a unique identifier associated with the mobile ballot and providing the unique identifier to the voter (See at least Biddulph [0035]; [0040]; [0043]; Fig. 9. Where a unique identifier (i.e., unique identification number/identification number/unique identifier) associated with the mobile ballot (i.e., ballot) is generated and providing the unique identifier to the voter (e.g., providing the unique identification number/identification number/unique identifier on a voter receipt).);
transmitting the mobile ballot with the selections made by the voter to a local election system along with the unique identifier associated with the mobile ballot (See at least Biddulph [0015-0016]; [0035]; [0041]; Fig. 3 steps 300, 310, 320; Biddulph Claim 1. Where the mobile ballot (i.e., ballot) is transmitted with selections made by the voter (i.e., user’s voting choices) to a local election system (i.e., tabulation database, e.g., local recorded vote database) along with the unique identifier (i.e., unique identification number/identification number/unique identifier) associated with the mobile ballot (i.e., ballot).); and
providing the electronic image of the mobile ballot upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot associated with the unique identifier (See at least Biddulph [0016]; [0049]; [0058]; Fig. 5 Step 530. Where the electronic image of the mobile ballot (i.e., screen image of the official ballot) is provided upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot (i.e., for the ballot) associated with the unique identifier (i.e., associated with the unique identification number/unique identifier).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of receiving final/completed ballots, storing final/completed ballots, and subsequently providing final/completed ballots upon voter request, to include the teachings of Biddulph, in order to allow the voter to audit the accuracy of their vote in the election tabulation database while preserving the voter's anonymity (Biddulph [0049]).
Durham further discloses that a phone number verification request may include the mobile telephone number from which the voter verification request was received, a mobile device type and any bibliographic data associated with the voter, such as the voter's name and address, etc. Durham [0037]. Durham indicates that a response to the verification request may indicate whether one or more of the mobile telephone number, the type of the voter's mobile device, and the voter bibliographic information corresponds to a mobile telephone number, mobile device type, and voter bibliographic information stored in the mobile carrier billing system. Durham [0011]; [0020]. However, the combination of Durham and Biddulph does not explicitly disclose querying the mobile device to verify a make and model of the mobile device including comparing the make and model with information associated with the first mobile number in a mobile voting verification system. However, Wang, who also is concerned with protecting access to content (Wang Abstract; [0031]), teaches querying the mobile device to verify a make and model of the mobile device including comparing the make and model with information associated with the first mobile number in a mobile verification system (See at least Wang [0032-0033]; Fig. 2 Steps 206 and 208. Wang teaches querying the mobile device (i.e., requesting from the client device) to verify a make and model of the mobile device (i.e., make and model of the client device) including comparing the make and model with information associated with the first mobile number in a mobile verification system (i.e., verifying for a match the make and model with the stored manufacture information for the client device).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of verifying an entity based on a mobile device type, to include the teachings of Wang, in order to confirm that the client/mobile device is authorized to receive the digital content (e.g., a ballot) (Wang [0031]).
Durham discloses transmitting a link to the mobile device (i.e., to the mobile device of the voter), wherein the link is specific to, and bound to, the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number (i.e., indicated, at least, by the fact that the link: is transmitted to a specific mobile device of the voter (e.g., via an SMS message); expires after a predetermined length of time after it was transmitted to the mobile device of the voter; requires a numerical code sent to the mobile device of the voter to be inputted into the system; and/or displays a particular/proper mobile ballot based on the address and/or identity provided in the verification request). Durham Abstract; [0014]; [0022]; [0046]; [0048]; [0052-0053]; Durham Claim 1. Durham also discloses that certain information may be verified before a ballot is provided to a voter. For example, Durham indicates that a voter verification system may verify that the voter's mobile phone has an internet protocol (IP) address that corresponds to an approved carrier domain. For example, when the voter selects the link, the IP address of the voter's phone may be transmitted to the mobile voter verification system, which determines whether the IP address indicates a mobile carrier domain that matches a carrier domain contained on a list of approved domain carriers that may be stored at the mobile voter verification system. Durham [0053]. However, Durham does not explicitly disclose where the link causes access to be rejected when opened from any other device.
Hoard, on the other hand, teaches where the link causes access to be rejected when opened from any other device (See at least Hoard [0009]; [0031]; [0040-0045]; [0048-0052]. Hoard teaches transmitting (i.e., propagating) a link (i.e., URL) to the mobile device, the link being specific to the mobile device associated with the mobile number (i.e., specific to the device associated with the invitee’s system identifier (e.g., telephone number)), automatically expiring outside a predetermined interval (i.e., “if a URL is not accessed in a pre-configured amount of time or used one time during the allowed period, the URL becomes invalid”), and causing access to be rejected (i.e., the invitee is denied access) when opened from any other device (i.e., indicated by a non-matching hash).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method, which transmits a specific link to the mobile device and validates information prior to providing a ballot, to include the teachings of Hoard. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to provide a secure way to prevent online information from being shared (Hoard [0034]).
Regarding Claim 2: The combination of Durham, Biddulph, Wang and Hoard discloses the mobile voting system of claim 1. Durham further discloses wherein determining that the identity of the voter is verified further comprises:
transmitting a unique code to the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham [0046]. Where a unique code (i.e., numerical code) is transmitted to the mobile device (i.e., mobile phone) of the voter.);
receiving a code from the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham [0046]); and
determining that the identity of the voter is verified based on the unique code corresponding to the code received from the mobile device (See at least Durham [0046]).
Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Durham, Biddulph, Wang and Hoard discloses the mobile voting system of claim 2. Durham further discloses wherein determining that the identity of the voter is verified further comprises verifying that a type of the mobile device from which the code was received corresponds to a type of mobile device corresponding to the first mobile device number stored in the second server (See at least Durham [0011] “The second response may indicate whether one or more of the mobile telephone number, the type of the voter's mobile device, and the voter bibliographic information corresponds to a mobile telephone number, mobile device type, and voter bibliographic information stored in the mobile carrier billing system”; [0020]; Durham Claim 9.).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Durham, Biddulph, Wang and Hoard discloses the mobile voting system of claim 1. Durham further discloses wherein determining that the identity of the voter is verified further comprises:
generating a unique uniform resource locator (URL) that is specific to the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham Abstract; [0013-0014]; [0022]; [0031]; [0038-0039]; [0043-0046]; [0048-0049]; [0052-0054]; Durham Claim 1 “wherein the link is configured to provide a mobile ballot corresponding to the voter's identity”. Durham discloses generating a unique uniform resource locator (URL) (i.e., link, e.g., a link to a code, a link to the mobile voting system) that is specific to the mobile device of the voter (i.e., indicated, at least, by the fact that the link: is transmitted to a specific mobile device of the voter (e.g., via an SMS message); expires after a predetermined length of time after it was transmitted to the mobile device of the voter; requires a numerical code sent to the mobile device of the voter to be inputted into the system; and/or displays a particular/proper mobile ballot based on the address and/or identity provided in the verification request).);
transmitting the unique URL to the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham [0014]; [0048-0049]. Where the unique URL (i.e., link, e.g., a link to a code, a link to the mobile voting system) is transmitted to the mobile device (i.e., mobile phone) of the voter.); and
determining that the identity of the voter is verified based on the voter selecting the unique URL (See at least Durham [0049]; [0053]. Where it is determined that the identity of the voter is verified based on the voter selecting the unique URL (e.g., based on the voter selecting the link and being provided a code and/or based on the voter selecting the link and subsequently verifying the IP address matches an approved carrier domain).).
Regarding Claim 25: The combination of Durham, Biddulph, Wang and Hoard discloses the mobile voting system of claim 1. Durham further discloses wherein verifying that the predetermined plurality of independent verification factors are satisfied comprises verifying at least two of: (i) device-origin evidence of user presence at the mobile device including at least one of biometric data captured by the mobile device and liveness detection, (ii) cross-correlation of identity information extracted from a government identification image including at least one of decoding machine-readable barcode data and optical character recognition of printed text and comparing the decoded and recognized identity information with voter registration data received from the first server and mobile carrier data received from the second server, (iii) network-based constraints including confirming that an Internet Protocol address for the mobile device corresponds to an approved mobile-carrier domain and confirming that a geographic location of the mobile device is within an approved location, and (iv) verification that the make and model queried from the mobile device match information associated with the user in the mobile voting verification system (See at least Durham [0031]; [0040-0043]; [0053]; . Durham discloses wherein verifying that the predetermined plurality of independent verification factors are satisfied comprises verifying at least two of: (i) device-origin evidence of user presence at the mobile device including at least one of biometric data captured by the mobile device and liveness detection (e.g., via photograph of the user that comprises metadata and/or via the capturing of an image of the voter via an infrared camera to show that the voter is a live human being), (ii) cross-correlation of identity information extracted from a government identification image including at least one of decoding machine-readable barcode data and optical character recognition of printed text and comparing the decoded and recognized identity information with voter registration data received from the first server and mobile carrier data received from the second server (i.e., “if the user's picture identification card includes a barcode or other type of encoded information, the mobile voter verification system may decode the information contained in the barcode and determine whether the information corresponds to the bibliographic information received from the registrar server and/or the mobile carrier billing system”), (iii) network-based constraints including confirming that an Internet Protocol address for the mobile device corresponds to an approved mobile-carrier domain (i.e., “verify that the voter's mobile phone has an internet protocol (IP) address that corresponds to an approved carrier domain”) and confirming that a geographic location of the mobile device is within an approved location (i.e., “the mobile voter verification system may also determine whether the verification request originated from an approved geographic location”),).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham in view of Biddulph in view of Wang in view of Hoard, as applied above, and further in view of Shefferman et al. (US 10,078,679 B1) (“Shefferman”).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Durham, Biddulph, Wang and Hoard discloses the mobile voting system of claim 1. Durham further discloses that the first server (i.e., voter registrar server) may send a denial signal to the mobile voting verification system when information it verifies does not match in a voter record. Durham [0036]. Similarly, the second server (i.e., mobile carrier billing system) may send a denial signal to the mobile voting verification system when information it verifies does not match information in the mobile carrier’s billing system. Durham [0037]. However, Durham does not explicitly disclose transmitting a notification to at least one of the first server and the second server based on a lack of correspondence between information received in the first response and information received in the second response. Shefferman, on the other hand, teaches wherein the steps performed by said one or more processors further comprise: transmitting a notification to at least one of the first server and the second server based on a lack of correspondence between information received in the first response and information received in the second response (See at least Shefferman Col. 5 line 49 – Col. 6 line 3; Col. 6 lines 45-58; Fig. 4 steps 404 and 408; Fig. 6. Where a notification is transmitted to at least one of the first server (i.e., data source, e.g., Virtual-Tour.com) and the second server (i.e., [second] data source, e.g., Postlets) based on lack of correspondence (i.e., based on a discrepancy) between information received from the first response and information received in the second response (i.e., between information received from the disparate data sources).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of notifying the mobile voting verification system when information in one or more databases/servers does not match, to include the teachings of Shefferman, in order to resolve any discrepancies in the data between each of the data sources (Shefferman Col. 2 lines 49-51).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham in view of Biddulph in view of Wang in view of Hoard, as applied above, and further in view of Ruge (US 2017/0078406 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Durham, Biddulph, Wang and Hoard discloses the mobile voting system of claim 1. Durham further discloses wherein the steps performed by said one or more processors further comprise:
rendering the mobile ballot corresponding to the voter's identity (See at least Durham [0013]; [0022]; [0053-0054]. Where the mobile ballot corresponding to the voter’s identity is rendered (i.e., generated).);
providing an image of the rendered mobile ballot to the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham [0013]; [0022]; [0053-0054]. Where an image of the rendered mobile ballot (i.e., digitally generated mobile ballot) is provided (i.e., presented) to the mobile device of the voter.); and
receiving ballot selections from the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Where ballot selections (i.e., voter’s selections, e.g., selections on the final/completed ballot) are received from the mobile device of the voter.).
Durham differs from the claimed invention, in part, because Durham does not explicitly disclose rendering the mobile ballot on a remote browser that is remote from the mobile device of the voter; or the remote browser receiving ballot selections from the mobile device of the voter.
Ruge, on the other hand, teaches wherein the steps performed by said one or more processors further comprise:
rendering [data] on a remote browser that is remote from the mobile device of the [user] (See at least Ruge [0004]; [0081]; Fig. 3B Step 348. Where data (i.e., data from the URI) is rendered on a remote browser that is remote from the mobile device of the user (i.e., remote from the user device).);
providing an image of the rendered [data] to the mobile device of the [user] (See at least Ruge [0004]; [0081-0083]; Fig. 3B Steps 350, 352, 354, 356, 358. Where an image of the rendered data (i.e., image of the rendered data from the URI) is provided (i.e., transmitted, e.g., transmitted in a video) to the mobile device of the user (i.e., to the user device).); and
the remote browser receiving selections from the mobile device of the [user] (See at least Ruge [0004]; [0083-0085]; Fig. 3B Steps 360, 362, 364, 366, 368. Where the remote browser receives selections (i.e., user input) from the mobile device of the user (i.e., from the user device).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of rendering and providing a mobile ballot to a voter and receiving ballot selections from the voter, to include rendering the mobile ballot on a remote browser that is remote from the mobile device of the voter, and the remote browser receiving ballot selections from the mobile device of the voter as suggested by Ruge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to provide a buffer between the Internet and the user's client device, such that malware, cookies, tracking software, and other malicious or merely annoying features of today's Internet may not infect the client device nor will tracking information about the user be obtainable by websites being browsed (Ruge [0017]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham in view of Biddulph in view of Wang in view of Hoard, as applied above, and further in view of Felten et al. (US 2009/0037260 A1) (“Felten”).
Regarding Claim 7: The combination of Durham, Biddulph, Wang and Hoard discloses the mobile voting system of claim 1. Durham further discloses wherein the steps performed by said one or more processors further comprise:
transmitting the mobile ballot with the selections made by the voter and the plurality of mobile ballots to a server configured to store election data (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Where the mobile ballot with the selections made by the voter (i.e., final/completed ballot) and the plurality of mobile ballots (i.e., final/completed ballots) are transmitted to a server configured to store election data (e.g., a server of the carrier’s mobile voting system and/or a server of the voter verification system).).
Durham discloses that completed ballots may be stored in the carrier’s mobile voting system and/or the voter verification system. Durham [0054]; [0056]. Durham also indicates that completed ballots are transmitted to the proper election authorities either electronically or manually based on the capabilities of each district. Durham [0054]. Furthermore, Durham indicates that after submitting their final ballot, a voter may request that the voter verification system provide a copy of the voter’s final ballot so that the voter can verify that the voter's selections were accurately reflected, and that the stored final ballot would then be transmitted to the voter’s mobile device. Durham [0056]. However, Durham does not explicitly disclose, but Felten teaches:
receiving election results from the server, wherein the election results received from the server are generated by printing the mobile ballot with the selections made by the voter and the plurality of mobile ballots, and determining a total number of votes for each candidate on said mobile ballot and plurality of mobile ballots (See at least Felten [0014]; [0019]; [0025]; [0027]; [0030]; Fig. 2. Where election results (i.e., a machine re-count) are received from the server (i.e., vote counting system), wherein the election results received from the server are generated by printing the mobile ballot (i.e., generating by printing the ballot/votes casts at the electronic voting machines) with the selections made by the voter and the plurality of mobile ballots (i.e., ballots), and determining (i.e., re-counting) a total number of votes (i.e., tally) for each candidate on said mobile ballot and plurality of mobile ballots.); and
comparing the election results stored in the database and the election results received from said server (See at least Felten [0014]; [0019]; [0027]; Fig. 2 Step 250. Where the election results stored in the database (i.e., the initial tally) and the election results received from said server (i.e., the machine re-count) are compared.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of storing final/completed ballots and subsequently verifying voter selections on the stored ballots, to include the teachings of Felten, in order to provide an audit process that assures the public that an election's outcome is the product of voters' intentions, not fraud or voting machine flaws (Felten [0082]).
Regarding Claim 8: The combination of Durham, Biddulph, Wang, Hoard and Felten discloses the mobile voting system of claim 7 and the method of claim 16. Durham does not explicitly disclose wherein the steps performed by said one or more processors further comprise transmitting a notification indicating a result of the comparison.
However, Felten further discloses wherein the steps performed by said one or more processors further comprise transmitting a notification indicating a result of the comparison (See at least Felten [0014]; [0019]; [0027-0028]; Fig. 2 Steps 250, 260; Felten Claim 1. Where a notification (e.g., a flag) indicating a result of the comparison is transmitted.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of storing final/completed ballots and subsequently verifying voter selections on the stored ballots, to include the teachings of Felten, in order to provide an audit process that assures the public that an election's outcome is the product of voters' intentions, not fraud or voting machine flaws (Felten [0082]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham, III et al. (US 2019/0114861 A1) (“Durham”) in view of Hoard et al. (US 2014/0096266 A1) (“Hoard”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0004970 A1) (“Wang”).
Regarding Claim 10: Durham discloses mobile voting method, the method comprising:
receiving a voter verification request, said voter verification request including a first mobile device number from a mobile device from which the voter verification request was received (See at least Durham [0004]; [0008]; [0030]; [0033]; Fig. 2 step 200. Durham discloses receiving a voter verification request, said voter verification request including a first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) from a mobile device from which the voter verification request was received.);
transmitting a first request containing said first mobile device number to a first server containing voter registration information (See at least Durham [0005]; [0008]; [0034]; Fig. 2 step 215. Where a first request (i.e., a request, e.g., first request) containing said first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) is transmitted to a first server (i.e., voter registrar server) containing voter registration information.);
receiving a first response containing information stored in the first server that corresponds to the first mobile device number (See at least Durham [0005]; [0009-0010]; [0035]; Fig. 2 step 220. Where a first response (i.e., confirmation signal, e.g., first response) containing information (e.g., other voter bibliographic information from the voter record, such as the voter's name, address, birthdate, and the like) stored in the first server (i.e., stored in the voter registrar server) that corresponds to the first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) is received.);
transmitting a second request containing said first mobile device number to a second server containing mobile carrier information (See at least Durham [0006]; [0011]; [0037]; Fig. 2 step 225. Where a second request (i.e., request, e.g., second request) containing said first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) is transmitted to a second server (i.e., mobile carrier billing system) containing mobile carrier information.);
receiving a second response containing information stored in the second server, which information corresponds to the first mobile device number (See at least Durham [0006]; [0011-0012]; [0037-0038]; Fig. 2 step 230. Where a second response (i.e., confirmation signal, e.g., second response) containing information (e.g., the name of, and optionally other identifying information relating to, the account holder associated with the received mobile telephone number) stored in the second server (i.e., in the mobile carrier billing system), which information corresponds to the first mobile device number (i.e., mobile telephone number) is received.);
determining that an identity of the voter is verified, comprising:
confirming that information contained in the first response from the first server corresponds to information contained in the second response from the second server, each indexed by the first mobile device number (See at least Durham [0012]; [0038]. Where it is determined that an identity of the voter is verified by confirming that information contained in the first response (i.e., confirmation signal, e.g., first response) from the first server (i.e., voter registrar server) corresponds to (i.e., matches) information contained in the second response (i.e., confirmation signal, e.g., second response) from the second server (i.e., mobile carrier billing system), each indexed by the first mobile device number.),
generating a unique uniform resource locator (URL) specific to the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number, [and] transmitting the unique URL to the mobile device (See at least Durham Abstract; [0013-0014]; [0022]; [0031]; [0038-0039]; [0043-0046]; [0048-0049]; [0052-0054]; Durham Claim 1 “wherein the link is configured to provide a mobile ballot corresponding to the voter's identity”. Durham discloses generating a unique uniform resource locator (URL) (i.e., link, e.g., a link to a code, a link to the mobile voting system) specific to the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number (i.e., indicated, at least, by the fact that the link: is transmitted to a specific mobile device of the voter (e.g., via an SMS message); expires after a predetermined length of time after it was transmitted to the mobile device of the voter; requires a numerical code sent to the mobile device of the voter to be inputted into the system; and/or displays a particular/proper mobile ballot based on the address and/or identity provided in the verification request), ), and transmitting the unique URL (i.e., link, e.g., a link to a code, a link to the mobile voting system) to the mobile device.),
in response to determining that the identity of the voter is verified, transmitting, directly or indirectly, a link to a mobile device of the voter, wherein the link is configured to provide a mobile ballot corresponding to the voter's identity (See at least Durham [0013]; [0048-0049]; [0054]; Fig. 2 step 245. Where in response to determining that the identity of the voter is verified (i.e., the verification request should be granted), transmitting, directly or indirectly, a link to a mobile device of the voter, wherein the link is configured to provide a mobile ballot (i.e., ballot/mobile ballot) corresponding to the voter's identity (i.e., the correct/appropriate ballot for the voter).);
receiving selections made by the voter on the mobile ballot (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Where selections (i.e., voter’s selections, e.g., selections on the final/completed ballot) made by the voter on the mobile ballot are received.); and
updating a database storing election results reflecting selections of a plurality of voters on a plurality of mobile ballots based on the received selections (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Where a database (e.g., a database of the carrier’s mobile voting system and/or a database of the voter verification system) storing election results reflecting selections (i.e., voter selections) of a plurality of voters (i.e., voters) on a plurality of mobile ballots based on the received selections is updated (e.g., updated by the storing process).).
Durham discloses generating and transmitting a link/URL specific to the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number to the mobile device (i.e., to the mobile device of the voter). Durham Abstract; [0014]; [0022]; [0046]; [0048]; [0052-0053]; Durham Claim 1. Durham also discloses that certain information may be verified before a ballot is provided to a voter. For example, Durham indicates that a voter verification system may verify that the voter's mobile phone has an internet protocol (IP) address that corresponds to an approved carrier domain. For example, when the voter selects the link, the IP address of the voter's phone may be transmitted to the mobile voter verification system, which determines whether the IP address indicates a mobile carrier domain that matches a carrier domain contained on a list of approved domain carriers that may be stored at the mobile voter verification system. Durham [0053]. However, Durham does not explicitly disclose authenticating device possession by confirming that the unique URL was selected from the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number.
Hoard, on the other hand, teaches authenticating device possession by confirming that the unique URL was selected from the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number (See at least Hoard [0009]; [0040-0045]; [0048-0052]. Hoard teaches authenticating device possession by confirming that the unique URL (i.e., URL) was selected from the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number (i.e., by confirming that the recreated hash, which is based on a system identifier (e.g., a telephone number), matches the hash in the URL).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method, which generates and transmits a specific link/URL to the mobile device and validates information prior to providing a ballot, to include the teachings of Hoard. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to provide a secure way to prevent online information from being shared (Hoard [0034]).
Durham further discloses that a phone number verification request may include the mobile telephone number from which the voter verification request was received, a mobile device type and any bibliographic data associated with the voter, such as the voter's name and address, etc. Durham [0037]. Durham indicates that a response to the verification request may indicate whether one or more of the mobile telephone number, the type of the voter's mobile device, and the voter bibliographic information corresponds to a mobile telephone number, mobile device type, and voter bibliographic information stored in the mobile carrier billing system. Durham [0011]; [0020]. However, the Durham does not explicitly disclose: via the unique URL, querying the mobile device to obtain a make and a model of the mobile device, and confirming a match of the make and the model to information associated with the first mobile device number of a mobile voting verification system. However, Wang, who also is concerned with protecting access to content (Wang Abstract; [0031]), teaches, via the unique URL, querying the mobile device to obtain a make and a model of the mobile device, and confirming a match of the make and the model to information associated with the first mobile device number of a mobile voting verification system (See at least Wang [0025]; [0031-0033]; Fig. 2 Steps 206 and 208. Wang teaches, via the unique URL (i.e., the specific site), querying (i.e., requesting) the mobile device to obtain a make and a model of the mobile device (i.e., client device), and confirming a match of the make and the model to information associated with the first mobile device number of a mobile voting verification system (i.e., verifying for a match of the make and model with the stored manufacture information for the client device).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of verifying an entity based on a mobile device type, to include the teachings of Wang, in order to confirm that the client/mobile device is authorized to receive the digital content (e.g., a ballot) (Wang [0031]).
Regarding Claim 11: The combination of Durham, Hoard and Wang discloses the method of claim 10. Durham further discloses wherein determining that the identity of the voter is verified further comprises:
transmitting a unique code to the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham [0046]. Where a unique code (i.e., numerical code) is transmitted to the mobile device (i.e., mobile phone) of the voter.);
receiving a code from the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham [0046]); and
determining that the identity of the voter is verified based on the unique code corresponding to the code received from the mobile device (See at least Durham [0046]).
Regarding Claim 12: The combination of Durham, Hoard and Wang discloses the method of claim 11. Durham further discloses wherein determining that the identity of the voter is verified further comprises verifying that a type of the mobile device from which the code was received corresponds to a type of mobile device corresponding to the first mobile device number stored in the second server (See at least Durham [0011] “The second response may indicate whether one or more of the mobile telephone number, the type of the voter's mobile device, and the voter bibliographic information corresponds to a mobile telephone number, mobile device type, and voter bibliographic information stored in the mobile carrier billing system”; [0020]; Durham Claim 9.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham in view of Hoard in view of Wang, as applied above, and further in view of Shefferman et al. (US 10,078,679 B1) (“Shefferman”).
Regarding Claim 14: The combination of Durham, Hoard and Wang discloses the method of claim 10. Durham further discloses that the first server (i.e., voter registrar server) may send a denial signal to the mobile voting verification system when information it verifies does not match in a voter record. Durham [0036]. Similarly, the second server (i.e., mobile carrier billing system) may send a denial signal to the mobile voting verification system when information it verifies does not match information in the mobile carrier’s billing system. Durham [0037]. However, Durham does not explicitly disclose transmitting a notification to at least one of the first server and the second server based on a lack of correspondence between information received in the first response and information received in the second response. Shefferman, on the other hand, teaches transmitting a notification to at least one of the first server and the second server based on a lack of correspondence between information received in the first response and information received in the second response (See at least Shefferman Col. 5 line 49 – Col. 6 line 3; Col. 6 lines 45-58; Fig. 4 steps 404 and 408; Fig. 6. Where a notification is transmitted to at least one of the first server (i.e., data source, e.g., Virtual-Tour.com) and the second server (i.e., [second] data source, e.g., Postlets) based on lack of correspondence (i.e., based on a discrepancy) between information received from the first response and information received in the second response (i.e., between information received from the disparate data sources).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of notifying the mobile voting verification system when information in one or more databases/servers does not match, to include the teachings of Shefferman, in order to resolve any discrepancies in the data between each of the data sources (Shefferman Col. 2 lines 49-51).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham in view of Hoard in view of Wang, as applied above, and further in view of Ruge (US 2017/0078406 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: The combination of Durham, Hoard and Wang discloses the method of claim 10. Durham further discloses:
rendering the mobile ballot corresponding to the voter's identity (See at least Durham [0013]; [0022]; [0053-0054]. Where the mobile ballot corresponding to the voter’s identity is rendered (i.e., generated).);
providing an image of the rendered mobile ballot to the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham [0013]; [0022]; [0053-0054]. Where an image of the rendered mobile ballot (i.e., digitally generated mobile ballot) is provided (i.e., presented) to the mobile device of the voter.); and
receiving ballot selections from the mobile device of the voter (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Where ballot selections (i.e., voter’s selections, e.g., selections on the final/completed ballot) are received from the mobile device of the voter.).
Durham differs from the claimed invention, in part, because Durham does not explicitly disclose rendering the mobile ballot on a remote browser that is remote from the mobile device of the voter; or the remote browser receiving ballot selections from the mobile device of the voter.
Ruge, on the other hand, teaches wherein the steps performed by said one or more processors further comprise:
rendering [data] on a remote browser that is remote from the mobile device of the [user] (See at least Ruge [0004]; [0081]; Fig. 3B Step 348. Where data (i.e., data from the URI) is rendered on a remote browser that is remote from the mobile device of the user (i.e., remote from the user device).);
providing an image of the rendered [data] to the mobile device of the [user] (See at least Ruge [0004]; [0081-0083]; Fig. 3B Steps 350, 352, 354, 356, 358. Where an image of the rendered data (i.e., image of the rendered data from the URI) is provided (i.e., transmitted, e.g., transmitted in a video) to the mobile device of the user (i.e., to the user device).); and
the remote browser receiving selections from the mobile device of the [user] (See at least Ruge [0004]; [0083-0085]; Fig. 3B Steps 360, 362, 364, 366, 368. Where the remote browser receives selections (i.e., user input) from the mobile device of the user (i.e., from the user device).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of rendering and providing a mobile ballot to a voter and receiving ballot selections from the voter, to include rendering the mobile ballot on a remote browser that is remote from the mobile device of the voter, and the remote browser receiving ballot selections from the mobile device of the voter as suggested by Ruge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to provide a buffer between the Internet and the user's client device, such that malware, cookies, tracking software, and other malicious or merely annoying features of today's Internet may not infect the client device nor will tracking information about the user be obtainable by websites being browsed (Ruge [0017]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham in view of Hoard in view of Wang, as applied above, and further in view of Felten et al. (US 2009/0037260 A1) (“Felten”).
Regarding Claim 16: The combination of Durham, Hoard and Wang discloses the method of claim 10. Durham further discloses:
transmitting the mobile ballot with the selections made by the voter and the plurality of mobile ballots to a server configured to store election data (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Where the mobile ballot with the selections made by the voter (i.e., final/completed ballot) and the plurality of mobile ballots (i.e., final/completed ballots) are transmitted to a server configured to store election data (e.g., a server of the carrier’s mobile voting system and/or a server of the voter verification system).).
Durham discloses that completed ballots may be stored in the carrier’s mobile voting system and/or the voter verification system. Durham [0054]; [0056]. Durham also indicates that completed ballots are transmitted to the proper election authorities either electronically or manually based on the capabilities of each district. Durham [0054]. Furthermore, Durham indicates that after submitting their final ballot, a voter may request that the voter verification system provide a copy of the voter’s final ballot so that the voter can verify that the voter's selections were accurately reflected, and that the stored final ballot would then be transmitted to the voter’s mobile device. Durham [0056]. However, Durham does not explicitly disclose, but Felten teaches:
receiving election results from the server, wherein the election results received from the server are generated by printing the mobile ballot with the selections made by the voter and the plurality of mobile ballots, and determining a total number of votes for each candidate on said mobile ballot and plurality of mobile ballots (See at least Felten [0014]; [0019]; [0025]; [0027]; [0030]; Fig. 2. Where election results (i.e., a machine re-count) are received from the server (i.e., vote counting system), wherein the election results received from the server are generated by printing the mobile ballot (i.e., generating by printing the ballot/votes casts at the electronic voting machines) with the selections made by the voter and the plurality of mobile ballots (i.e., ballots), and determining (i.e., re-counting) a total number of votes (i.e., tally) for each candidate on said mobile ballot and plurality of mobile ballots.); and
comparing the election results stored in the database and the election results received from said server (See at least Felten [0014]; [0019]; [0027]; Fig. 2 Step 250. Where the election results stored in the database (i.e., the initial tally) and the election results received from said server (i.e., the machine re-count) are compared.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of storing final/completed ballots and subsequently verifying voter selections on the stored ballots, to include the teachings of Felten, in order to provide an audit process that assures the public that an election's outcome is the product of voters' intentions, not fraud or voting machine flaws (Felten [0082]).
Regarding Claim 17: The combination of Durham, Hoard, Wang and Felten discloses the method of claim 16. Durham does not explicitly disclose transmitting a notification indicating a result of the comparison.
However, Felten further discloses transmitting a notification indicating a result of the comparison (See at least Felten [0014]; [0019]; [0027-0028]; Fig. 2 Steps 250, 260; Felten Claim 1. Where a notification (e.g., a flag) indicating a result of the comparison is transmitted.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of storing final/completed ballots and subsequently verifying voter selections on the stored ballots, to include the teachings of Felten, in order to provide an audit process that assures the public that an election's outcome is the product of voters' intentions, not fraud or voting machine flaws (Felten [0082]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham in view of Hoard in view of Wang, as applied above, and further in view of Biddulph (US 2005/0211778 A1).
Regarding Claim 18: The combination of Durham, Hoard and Wang discloses the method of claim 10. Durham further discloses wherein the steps performed by said one or more processors further comprise:
receiving an electronic image of the mobile ballot (See at least Durham [0056]. Where an electronic image of the mobile ballot (i.e., final ballot) is received (e.g., received by the voter verification system).); and
providing the electronic image of the mobile ballot upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot associated with the unique identifier (See at least Durham [0056]. Where the electronic image of the mobile ballot (i.e., final ballot) is provided (e.g., to the voter’s mobile device) upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot (i.e., upon receiving a request to provide a copy of the voter’s final ballot).).
Durham does not explicitly disclose but Biddulph teaches:
generating a unique identifier associated with the mobile ballot and providing the unique identifier to the voter (See at least Biddulph [0035]; [0040]; [0043]; Fig. 9. Where a unique identifier (i.e., unique identification number/identification number/unique identifier) associated with the mobile ballot (i.e., ballot) is generated and providing the unique identifier to the voter (e.g., providing the unique identification number/identification number/unique identifier on a voter receipt).);
transmitting the mobile ballot with the selections made by the voter to a local election system along with the unique identifier associated with the mobile ballot (See at least Biddulph [0015-0016]; [0035]; [0041]; Fig. 3 steps 300, 310, 320; Biddulph Claim 1. Where the mobile ballot (i.e., ballot) is transmitted with selections made by the voter (i.e., user’s voting choices) to a local election system (i.e., tabulation database, e.g., local recorded vote database) along with the unique identifier (i.e., unique identification number/identification number/unique identifier) associated with the mobile ballot (i.e., ballot).); and
providing the electronic image of the mobile ballot upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot associated with the unique identifier (See at least Biddulph [0016]; [0049]; [0058]; Fig. 5 Step 530. Where the electronic image of the mobile ballot (i.e., screen image of the official ballot) is provided upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot (i.e., for the ballot) associated with the unique identifier (i.e., associated with the unique identification number/unique identifier).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of receiving final/completed ballots, storing final/completed ballots, and subsequently providing final/completed ballots upon voter request, to include the teachings of Biddulph, in order to allow the voter to audit the accuracy of their vote in the election tabulation database while preserving the voter's anonymity (Biddulph [0049]).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham, III et al. (US 2019/0114861 A1) (“Durham”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0004970 A1) (“Wang”) in view of Hoard et al. (US 2014/0096266 A1) (“Hoard”) in view of Biddulph (US 2005/0211778 A1).
Regarding Claim 22: Durham discloses a method for mobile voting, comprising:
accessing a voter verification request including a mobile number associated with a mobile device (See at least Durham [0004]; [0008]; [0030]; [0033]; Fig. 2 step 200. Durham discloses accessing (e.g., when the request is received) a voter verification request including a mobile number (i.e., mobile telephone number) associated with a mobile device.);
verifying an identity of a voter by correlating voter registration data associated with the mobile number with mobile carrier information associated with the mobile number (See at least Durham [0008-0012]; [0038]. Durham discloses verifying an identity of a voter by correlating voter registration data (e.g., other voter bibliographic information from the voter record, such as the voter's name, address, birthdate, and the like) associated with the mobile number with mobile carrier information (e.g., the name of, and optionally other identifying information relating to, the account holder associated with the received mobile telephone number) associated with the mobile number.);
prior to providing ballot access, verifying that a predetermined plurality of independent verification factors are satisfied (See at least Durham [0039]; [0043-0046]. Durham discloses prior to providing ballot access, verifying that a predetermined plurality of independent verification factors (e.g., facial recognition, geographic location verification, fingerprint verification, retinal scan verification, verifying a numerical code that was sent to the mobile device via a text message, etc.) are satisfied.);
transmitting a link to the mobile device, the link being specific to the mobile device associated with the mobile number, automatically expiring outside a predetermined interval (See at least Durham Abstract; [0014]; [0022]; [0046]; [0048]; [0052-0053]; Durham Claim 1 “wherein the link is configured to provide a mobile ballot corresponding to the voter's identity”. Durham discloses transmitting a link to the mobile device (i.e., to the mobile device of the voter), the link being specific to the mobile device associated with the mobile number (i.e., indicated, at least, by the fact that the link: is transmitted to a specific mobile device of the voter (e.g., via an SMS message); expires after a predetermined length of time after it was transmitted to the mobile device of the voter; requires a numerical code sent to the mobile device of the voter to be inputted into the system; and/or displays a particular/proper mobile ballot based on the address and/or identity provided in the verification request), automatically expiring outside a predetermined interval (i.e., “the link may expire 5 minutes after it is transmitted to the mobile phone, although other expiration periods may be used”).);
after verifying the identity of the voter, and in response to selection of the link from the mobile device associated with the mobile number, rendering a ballot corresponding to the voter's identity on a remote browser to provide an image of the ballot to the voter (See at least Durham [0012-0013]; [0022]; [0051]; [0053-0054]. Durham discloses, after verifying the identity of the voter (e.g., by matching information in two different systems/databases, and/or by verifying an IP address), and in response to selection of the link from the mobile device associated with the mobile number (i.e., when the voter selects the link), rendering a ballot corresponding to the voter's identity (i.e., corresponding to identifying information in the verification request) on a remote browser (i.e., on the voter’s mobile phone) to provide (i.e., present) an image of the ballot (i.e., a digitally generated mobile ballot) to the voter.); and
transmitting the ballot with selections made by the voter (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Durham discloses transmitting the ballot with selections made by the voter (i.e., the completed ballot).).
Durham further discloses that a phone number verification request may include the mobile telephone number from which the voter verification request was received, a mobile device type and any bibliographic data associated with the voter, such as the voter's name and address, etc. Durham [0037]. Durham indicates that a response to the verification request may indicate whether one or more of the mobile telephone number, the type of the voter's mobile device, and the voter bibliographic information corresponds to a mobile telephone number, mobile device type, and voter bibliographic information stored in the mobile carrier billing system. Durham [0011]; [0020]. However, Durham does not explicitly disclose: verifying a make and model associated with the mobile device; or after verifying the make and model of the mobile device, rendering an image. However, Wang, who also is concerned with protecting access to content (Wang Abstract; [0031]), teaches:
verifying a make and model associated with the mobile device (See at least Wang [0031-0033]. Wang teaches verifying a make and model associated with the mobile device (i.e., make and model associated with the client device).);
after verifying the make and model of the mobile device, rendering an image (See at least Wang Abstract; [0022]; [0031-0033]; [0046]. Wang teaches after verifying the make and model of the mobile device (i.e., make and model of the client device), rendering an image (e.g., by delivering, or otherwise providing access to, digital content (e.g., an image)).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method, which verifies an entity based on a mobile device type, to include the teachings of Wang. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to confirm that the client/mobile device is authorized to receive the digital content (e.g., a ballot) (Wang [0031]).
Durham discloses transmitting a link to the mobile device (i.e., to the mobile device of the voter), the link being specific to the mobile device associated with the mobile number (i.e., indicated, at least, by the fact that the link: is transmitted to a specific mobile device of the voter (e.g., via an SMS message); expires after a predetermined length of time after it was transmitted to the mobile device of the voter; requires a numerical code sent to the mobile device of the voter to be inputted into the system; and/or displays a particular/proper mobile ballot based on the address and/or identity provided in the verification request). Durham Abstract; [0014]; [0022]; [0046]; [0048]; [0052-0053]; Durham Claim 1. Durham also discloses that certain information may be verified before a ballot is provided to a voter. For example, Durham indicates that a voter verification system may verify that the voter's mobile phone has an internet protocol (IP) address that corresponds to an approved carrier domain. For example, when the voter selects the link, the IP address of the voter's phone may be transmitted to the mobile voter verification system, which determines whether the IP address indicates a mobile carrier domain that matches a carrier domain contained on a list of approved domain carriers that may be stored at the mobile voter verification system. Durham [0053]. However, Durham does not explicitly disclose where the link causes access to be rejected when opened from any other device.
Hoard, on the other hand, teaches where the link causes access to be rejected when opened from any other device (See at least Hoard [0009]; [0031]; [0040-0045]; [0048-0052]. Hoard teaches transmitting (i.e., propagating) a link (i.e., URL) to the mobile device, the link being specific to the mobile device associated with the mobile number (i.e., specific to the device associated with the invitee’s system identifier (e.g., telephone number)), automatically expiring outside a predetermined interval (i.e., “if a URL is not accessed in a pre-configured amount of time or used one time during the allowed period, the URL becomes invalid”), and causing access to be rejected (i.e., the invitee is denied access) when opened from any other device (i.e., indicated by a non-matching hash).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method, which transmits a specific link to the mobile device and validates information prior to providing a ballot, to include the teachings of Hoard. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to provide a secure way to prevent online information from being shared (Hoard [0034]).
As indicated above, Durham discloses transmitting the ballot with selections made by the voter (i.e., the completed/final ballot). Durham [0054]; [0056]. Durham further discloses that after submitting the final ballot, the voter may request that the voter verification system provide a copy of the voter's final ballot so that the voter can verify that the voter's selections were accurately reflected. Upon receipt of such a request from the voter, the voter verification system may directly or indirectly transmit the voter's stored final ballot to the voter's mobile device. However, Durham does not explicitly disclose but Biddulph teaches:
generating a unique identifier associated with the ballot and providing the unique identifier to the voter (See at least Biddulph [0035]; [0040]; [0043]; Fig. 9. Where a unique identifier (i.e., unique identification number/identification number/unique identifier) associated with the ballot (i.e., ballot) is generated and providing the unique identifier to the voter (e.g., providing the unique identification number/identification number/unique identifier on a voter receipt).);
transmitting the mobile ballot with the selections made by the voter to a local election system along with the unique identifier associated with the mobile ballot (See at least Biddulph [0015-0016]; [0035]; [0041]; Fig. 3 steps 300, 310, 320; Biddulph Claim 1. Where the mobile ballot (i.e., ballot) is transmitted with selections made by the voter (i.e., user’s voting choices) to a local election system (i.e., tabulation database, e.g., local recorded vote database) along with the unique identifier (i.e., unique identification number/identification number/unique identifier) associated with the mobile ballot (i.e., ballot).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of receiving final/completed ballots, transmitting final/completed ballots, and subsequently providing final/completed ballots upon voter request, to include the teachings of Biddulph, in order to allow the voter to audit the accuracy of their vote in the election tabulation database while preserving the voter's anonymity (Biddulph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 23: The combination of Durham, Wang, Hoard and Biddulph discloses the method of claim 22. Durham further discloses:
accessing an electronic image of the ballot (See at least Durham [0056]. Where an electronic image of the mobile ballot (i.e., final ballot) is accessed (e.g., when it is received by the voter verification system).); and
providing the electronic image of the mobile ballot upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot (See at least Durham [0056]. Where the electronic image of the mobile ballot (i.e., final ballot) is provided (e.g., to the voter’s mobile device) upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot (i.e., upon receiving a request to provide a copy of the voter’s final ballot).).
Durham does not explicitly disclose providing the electronic image of the mobile ballot upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot associated with the unique identifier (emphasis added).
Biddulph, on the other hand, teaches providing the electronic image of the mobile ballot upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot associated with the unique identifier (See at least Biddulph [0016]; [0049]; [0058]; Fig. 5 Step 530. Where the electronic image of the mobile ballot (i.e., screen image of the official ballot) is provided upon receiving a voter request for the mobile ballot (i.e., for the ballot) associated with the unique identifier (i.e., associated with the unique identification number/unique identifier).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durham’s method of receiving final/completed ballots, transmitting final/completed ballots, and subsequently providing final/completed ballots upon voter request, to include the teachings of Biddulph, in order to allow the voter to audit the accuracy of their vote in the election tabulation database while preserving the voter's anonymity (Biddulph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 24: The combination of Durham, Wang, Hoard and Biddulph discloses the method of claim 22. Durham further discloses:
receiving selections made by the voter on the mobile ballot (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Where selections (i.e., voter’s selections, e.g., selections on the final/completed ballot) made by the voter on the mobile ballot are received.); and
updating a database storing election results reflecting selections of a plurality of voters on a plurality of mobile ballots based on the received selections (See at least Durham [0054]; [0056]. Where a database (e.g., a database of the carrier’s mobile voting system and/or a database of the voter verification system) storing election results reflecting selections (i.e., voter selections) of a plurality of voters (i.e., voters) on a plurality of mobile ballots based on the received selections is updated (e.g., updated by the storing process).
Response to Arguments
Terminal Disclaimer
Applicant’s petition to withdraw the erroneously filed terminal disclaimer to U.S. Patent No. 11,565,111 was granted on February 26, 2026.
The corrected terminal disclaimer filed on November 24, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 11,575,516 has been reviewed and is accepted.
Examiner thanks applicant for promptly correcting this error and filling the correct terminal disclaimer.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 14-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s amendments have corrected the previously cited issues, accordingly the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claims 10-12 and 14-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant’s amendments have corrected the previously cited issues, accordingly the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 22-24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea). Applicant argues that amended claim 22 is not “directed to” an abstract idea because the claim requires: (i) correlating two independent back-end sources (registrar and carrier) keyed to a mobile number; (ii) verifying device make/model; (iii) a mandatory pre-access plurality of independent verification factors; (iv) issuance of a device-bound, single-use, time-limited link that rejects access from any other device; and (v) remote browser rendering that provides only an image of the ballot. Amendment, pp. 15-16. Applicant’s arguments have been considered and were found to be persuasive. Examiner contends that the claim 22 still recites one or more abstract ideas (e.g., verifying information associated with a voter, providing the voter with a ballot after the verification, and managing information associated with a completed ballot). However, examiner agrees that the additional elements, which provide particular details describing how the voter information is verified (e.g., via two independent sources) and particular details describing how a link specific to the mobile device is utilized to present the ballot to the particular user/user device, integrate any recited abstract idea into a practical application. In view of the current claim amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection on claims 22-24 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to claim 1 Applicant argues that Durham never queries the user's device to retrieve or verify the device's make and model. Amendment, p. 18. Examiner agrees.
Applicant indicates that Wang is about controlling access to digital content based on properties reported by the client device but does not cure the deficiencies of Durham with respect to the features of claim 1. Amendment, p. 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang teaches querying the mobile device (i.e., requesting from the client device) to verify a make and model of the mobile device (i.e., make and model of the client device) including comparing the make and model with information associated with the first mobile number in a mobile verification system (i.e., verifying for a match the make and model with the stored manufacture information for the client device). Wang [0032-0033]; Fig. 2 Steps 206 and 208.
Applicant argues that neither Durham nor Wang requires a predetermined plurality of independent verification factors to be satisfied before any ballot link is issued. Amendment, p. 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Durham discloses verifying that a predetermined plurality of independent verification factors (e.g., facial recognition, geographic location verification, fingerprint verification, retinal scan verification, verifying a numerical code that was sent to the mobile device via a text message, etc.) are satisfied. Durham [0031]; [0039]; [0043-0046]. Durham also discloses where, in response to determining that the identity of the voter is verified (i.e., the verification request should be granted), and verifying that the predetermined plurality of independent verification factors (e.g., facial recognition, geographic location verification, fingerprint verification, retinal scan verification, verifying a numerical code that was sent to the mobile device via a text message, etc.) are satisfied, transmitting, directly or indirectly, a link to the mobile device of the voter. Durham Abstract; [0013-0014]; [0022]; [0031]; [0039]; [0043-0046]; [0048-0049]; [0052-0054]; Fig. 2 step 245; Durham Claim 1.
Applicant argues that neither Durham nor Wang teach a time-limited ballot link that is bound to the originating mobile device (tied to the phone number). Amendment, p. 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner contends that Durham discloses generating, transmitting and subsequently utilizing a time-limited ballot link. Durham Abstract; [0013-0014]; [0022]; [0031]; [0039]; [0043-0046]; [0048-0049]; [0052-0054]; Fig. 2 step 245; Durham Claim 1. For example, Durham discloses that the generated/transmitted link to the ballot “may expire 5 minutes after it is transmitted to the mobile phone, although other expiration periods may be used.” Durham [0048].
Durham also discloses that the link is specific to, and bound to, the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number (i.e., indicated, at least, by the fact that the link: is transmitted to a specific mobile device of the voter (e.g., via an SMS message); expires after a predetermined length of time after it was transmitted to the mobile device of the voter; requires a numerical code sent to the mobile device of the voter to be inputted into the system; and/or displays a particular/proper mobile ballot based on the address and/or identity provided in the verification request). Durham Abstract; [0014]; [0022]; [0046]; [0048]; [0052-0053]; Durham Claim 1.
Applicant argues that neither Durham, nor Vicari, nor Wang (alone or in combination) teaches or suggests all of the features of amended claim 10. Amendment, pp. 19-20. Examiner agrees in part. Examiner contends that Durham and Wang continue to teach a large portion of claim 10, including several of the newly added features. However, Examiner agrees that neither Durham, nor Vicari, nor Wang explicitly disclose authenticating device possession by confirming that the unique URL was selected from the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number. In view of the claim amendments, examiner has removed Vicari from the prior art rejection and added a new reference, Hoard, who better teaches aspects pertaining to the use of a device specific URL including authenticating device possession by confirming that the unique URL was selected from the mobile device associated with the first mobile device number. Examiner contends that the combination of Durham, Hoard and Wang renders claim 10 obvious.
Applicant argues that the features of independent claim 22, as amended, are absent from the cited references. Examiner agrees in part. Examiner contends that the prior art of Durham, Wang and Biddulph continue to teach the majority of the claimed invention, including most of the newly added features. Examiner acknowledges that neither Durham, Wang and Biddulph explicitly disclose where the link causes access to be rejected when opened from any other device. Accordingly, examiner has added an additional reference, Hoard, to the prior art rejection to teach this particular feature. Examiner contends that the combination of Durham, Wang, Hoard and Biddulph renders claim 22 obvious. For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection seen above, all claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Parmasad et al. (US 2001/0037234 A1) discloses a process where a voter is verified via the use of a password and/or by detecting an electronic certificate stored on a host device associated with the voter. Parmasad discloses that the voter is provided with a plurality of hyperlinks, including a hyperlink to a voting page, once the voter has been successfully authenticated/validated.
Reardon (US 2006/0041468 A1) discloses where an electronic tally, or complete record, is stored and subsequently compared to paper ballots deposited into a ballot box. Reardon [0046].
Prakash et al. (US 2014/0289831 A1) discloses where a server receives a device-specific URI from a secure execution environment of a device and may verify that the URI is valid for the device that is being used to access the website. Prakash [0012].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698