DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method, computer program product, and system for verifying a user meets identification requirements for an activity/ event. This falls under the mental process grouping/ organizing human activity as it is an access to an event/ activity or similar to the applying for a passport wherein proof of citizenship and identity documents are required. The limitations of detecting, identifying, and instructing under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (computing device, memory, processor) with nothing precluding the steps from practically being performed in the human mind, as it is merely a generic computer implementation of a mental process. The additional elements of the generic computer components are merely being used to perform the judicial exception via instructions applied to them. Thus, the processor/ memory/ computing device do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible. The limitations of claim 2 merely recite limitations drawn to the type of data and this does not overcome the 101 rejection. Claim 3 recites ranking of documents but this is merely drawn to the type of data used for applying the abstract idea in combination with mental steps that are performed using generic computer components. Claims 4-5 is drawn towards type of data/ documents and does not provide a practical application as its merely details of the data used in the abstract idea in addition to following rules and ranking, which is generic computerization of mental steps and thus is part of the abstract idea. Claim 6 is seen a pre-solution activity that is necessary for the completion of the abstract ide and/ or mental steps of comparisons. Claim 7 can be seen as pre solution activity for the abstract idea as communication is part of the abstract idea in order to compare/ verify data. Claims 8-20 are rejected under 101 for similar reasons as they are the computer program and system claims corresponding to claims 1-7.
Re the limitations to the independent claims of building the AI model, the Examiner notes that such limitations are drawn to machine learning, which are interested as mathematical calculations (see Recentive Analytics). The plain meaning of such terms are optimization algorithms which computer parameters to identify the secondary or alternative documents which is math concepts performed using generic computer components and thus is not a practical application. There are not specific recitations of the model and thus the abstract idea is configured to a particular technological environment (AI/ machine modelling or leaning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claim. As such limtaitons are instructions to apply an abstract idea, they cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even further, MPEP 2106.05a.I. iii indicates that mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), and the claim limitations as interpreted by the Examiner is automating a manual process on a computer (mental concepts in addition to abstract math (algorithms).
Re the newly added limitations of training the model using specific data, the Examiner notes this falls under math in terms of abstract concepts.
Re the newly added limitations of inputting one mor more digital ID documents, this falls under routine data gathering for practicing the abstract steps.
Re the newly added limitations regarding identifying the alternative digital ID documents using the AI model, since the modeling is math, this also falls under math as abstract steps.
The last clause (claim 1) of instructing, falls under a mental step (applied in a generic computer environment) and/or insignificant post solution activity as it merely is a request for information, such as verifying entry applications which can fall under organized human activity. The Examiner notes that such limitations drawn to verification steps absent a practical application are not eligible under 101.
Re claim 2, the Examiner nots tat the determining steps are interpreted as part of routine data gathering or can be seen as mental steps performed on generic computer devices as there is an abstract data comparison being performed (similar to Electric Power). The computer is merely being used a tool to perform mental steps of comparisons.
Re claim 3, the Examiner notes that the newly added limtaitons are merely drawn to the details of the AI model, which falls under math concepts and abstract data comparison steps performed by generic computer components.
Re claims 4-5, the limitations are merely further details of the type of data, and therefore are not a practical application or an improvement in technology or to the computer.
Re claim 6, the newly added limitations are merely reciting specifics of the type of data/ relationship. The determining step is an abstract step that is mental/ math performed by generic computer components.
Re claim 7, monitoring is seen as an abstract data gathering step as it can be performed mentally/ by generic computer components.
Re claims 8-20, the limitations have been discussed above.
The Examiner maintains that novel abstract ideas are still abstract. In the instant claims, the computer is being used as a tool, more so than a novel solution to a technological problem. Building/ Training an AI model falls under the category of math for abstract steps. The gathering of documents and using the model is data gathering and math. The computer is being used as a tool to collect data and assess/ make a comparison to output a result.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re the Applicants argument that the 101 is not applicable, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that just because an abstract idea is performed by a computer does not mean it is not abstract (MPEP 2106.I. 5th paragraph, and wherein per the cases of Bilski and Alice Corp. supersedes the notion that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent eligible merely by adding a generic computer to the claim for the purposes of executing the software or algorithm).
MPEP 2105.04.a.2.II.B recites that an example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
The Examiner maintains that solely linking an abstract idea to a computer or a computer environment does not preclude the claim from being rejected under 101 as abstract. In the instant claims, identifying an alternative ID is a metal step that a person can look at the documents and make a decision on an alternate ID. Such steps are drawn to organizing an activity, and per the Applicants own claims is for verifying for an activity or an even, which is organizing human activity/ mental processes. The claims recite generic computers performing generic computer functions of receiving and comparing data to known data. Thus, even claim 8, as it lacks a recitation of program code being executed by a computer processor to carry out the instructions to perform the various steps, thus reads on a program written down on a piece of paper/ mental steps and because there is no relationship between the paper and the instructions (no functional relationship), the program is printed matter.
When looking at independent claim 1 as argued by the Applicant, detecting, identifying, and instructing are seen as mental steps part of organizing human activity, and can be seen as a generic computerization of a mental process, thus applying a mental process to a generic computer environment does not provide a practical application as its merely applying the abstract idea to a particular environment. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer as there is only generic data comparisons being performed. Math and routine data gathering are used to build and provide documents to the system, wherein a determination is made, and similar to verification, an output is made as to whether the documents are acceptable. There is not a practical application, and novel abstract steps still remain abstract steps for 101 purposes.
The Examiner notes that the additional limitations involving AI/ modelling are still abstract as there are drawn to math/ algorithms. Generic computer components are recited for teaching the abstract idea being applied in a particular environment. The Examiner notes that the details of such AI/ modeling are not recited in the claim such as a specific detailed algorithm about how detecting, building, and identifying are accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). There is no practical application by applying the abstract idea to a generic computer environment. While a gate or lock being opened or closed could provide a practical application, such teachings are not supported by the specification. Merely granting access to an event is not a practical application as it is drawn to organized human activity without a practical application.
The Examiner notes that a practical application could possibly be recited to overcome the 101, such as opening a gate/ door/ lock based upon the results of verification, for example, if such a practical application is supported by the specification. The limitations of the AI module are not interpreted as a specific detailed algorithm aside from routine data gathering/ collecting, storing, and comparing data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Paik can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876