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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on February 12, 2026. Claims 1-27 were pending in the Application. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. No new claims have been added. No new claims have been canceled, with claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, 12-13, 15, 20, and 23 remaining canceled. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1 and 11. Thus claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-27 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant does not necessarily agree with this rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and submits that “the characterization by the Office Action asserting that the pending claims recite the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, does not accurately reflect what the claims recite when considered as a whole, as required by MPEP §2106.04(a); Examiner does not identify any claim limitations that recite a fundamental commercial practice, a legal obligation, a contractual relationship, or a rule governing human conduct, hallmarks of the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping identified in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2); the claims recite a computer-implemented verification pipeline that operates at a technical level to detect fraudulent third-party verifiers in a networked computing environment; the limitations that the Examiner characterizes as supporting the abstract idea, such as verifying authorization credentials, analyzing textual input, and determining elapsed transmission time, are not human activities and cannot practically be performed by humans; these operations are inherently computer-centric and do not organize, regulate, or manage human activity, commercial relationships, or legal interactions; the focus of the claims is not on whether a payout should occur as a matter of business logic, but on how a computing system technically determines verifier trustworthiness using image processing and network-level analysis before permitting system execution of a payout operation; the claims are directed to a technological solution to a problem arising in computer networks, namely, spoofed or fraudulent third-party verification, not to a method of organizing human activity; the claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One; the claims are nevertheless not "directed to" that abstract idea because they integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application; the Examiner's analysis focuses only on select, high-level claim language relating to a payout, while disregarding the substantial technical limitations that define how the claimed system operates; the claimed method integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application through a specific verification architecture; these limitations do not merely append generic computer components to an abstract idea but instead define a concrete technological mechanism that constrains and meaningfully limits the alleged abstract concept; they are limited to a particular means and method for performing verification, namely, a computer-implemented pipeline that improves the reliability and security of third-party verification in networked environments by addressing technical problems such as spoofed credentials, manipulated image inputs, and anomalous network behavior; similar to McRO, the claims do not preempt identity verification or payouts in general but instead recite a specific technological implementation that governs how verification is performed and how system actions are controlled as a result; the claims are nonetheless patent-eligible because they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, thereby satisfying Step 2B of the Alice framework; the Office Action does not establish, under any of the criteria set forth in MPEP §2106.05(d), that the additional elements recited in the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional; the Office Action does not cite prior art demonstrating that these elements, as claimed and in the claimed combination, were conventional, nor does it identify any admission in the specification to that effect; the additional elements relied upon here are not the alleged abstract idea itself, nor are they "insignificant extra-solution activity, rather, they define the technical mechanism by which the claimed system operates; analogous to BASCOM, the claims recite a specific and unconventional arrangement of these elements that yields a technological improvement, namely, enhanced detection of fraudulent third-party verifiers through coordinated image processing and network-level analysis prior to execution of a sensitive system operation; at minimum, under Berkheimer, whether the claimed additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional presents a factual issue that has not been properly established on the current record; and in the absence of evidentiary support meeting the standards set forth in MPEP §2106.05(d), the Office Action cannot sustain a finding that the claims lack an inventive concept" .
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The specification, (PG Pub US 20240202724 A1, para 1), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘724 A1, para 1), discloses that the invention generally relates to expedited insurance payouts based on identity verification, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “receiving, by a processor, a request for a payout and life event data from a second entity; verifying, by the processor, the life event data as a [AltContent: ]function of an authorization credential associated with a verifier, wherein the authorization credential is contained in a data packet appended to an IP address associated with the verifier, wherein verifying the life event data comprises: analyzing a textual input received from the verifier, wherein analyzing the textual input comprises converting the textual input into machine-encoded text by an optical character recognition (OCR) process, wherein converting the textual input into the machine-encoded text comprises converting images of text in the textual input into the machine-encoded text and further comprises: pre-processing image components of the images by de-skewing at least one of the image components by applying a transform operation to the at least one of the image components; implementing an OCR algorithm comprising a matrix matching process by comparing pixels of at least one of the pre-processed images to pixels of a stored glyph on a pixel-by-pixel basis; and post-processing an output of the matrix matching process to increase OCR accuracy by constraining the output to a lexicon containing a set of words whose occurrence is permitted; completing at least part of the verification by comparing at least a character string of the analyzed textual input to character strings associated with one or more authorized users; verifying the IP address by determining time elapsed between transmission of the authorization credential from the verifier and receipt by the processor; and verifying the authorization credential as a function of a classification of the IP address, wherein the verification comprises flagging authorization credentials of fraudulent verifiers, wherein the verification further comprises flagging authorization credentials of fraudulent verifiers where the time elapsed is more than an expected amount; generating, by the processor, one or more cryptographic hashes that are representative of the verification of the life event data; classifying the verifier as authorized or fraudulent as a function of: a comparison of the character string derived from the OCR process; and the determined time elapsed between transmission and receipt of the authorization credential; suppressing initiation of the payout when the verifier is classified as fraudulent; initiating, by the processor, the payout between a first entity and the second entity as a function of the determination of validity of the life event data and the request; and performing, by the processor, the payout between the first entity and the second entity as a function of the determination of validity of the life event data”, which represent the abstract idea of “payouts based on identity verification”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a processor”, “a data packet appended to an IP address associated with the verifier”, “machine-encoded text by an optical character recognition (OCR) process”, “comparing pixels of at least one of the pre-processed images to pixels of a stored glyph on a pixel-by-pixel basis”, and “increase OCR accuracy”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as it represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “payouts based on identity verification”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “payouts based on identity verification”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”. Examiner also notes the basis of the rejection is not based on Berkheimer, as argued by the Applicant, where the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore, evidentiary support meeting the standards set forth in the MPEP §2106.05 (d) is not put forth nor required.
With respect to the additional element operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional element represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “payouts based on identity verification”. The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for “payouts based on identity verification”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “payouts based on identity verification”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a payouts based on identity verification concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 11 also recites the abstract idea of “payouts based on identity verification”, as well as the additional elements of “an apparatus for identification using third-party verifiers, comprising: a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the processor, the memory comprising instructions configuring the processor to: …”, “in a data packet appended to an IP address associated with the verifier”, “into machine-encoded text by an optical character recognition (OCR) process”, “comparing pixels of at least one of the pre-processed images to pixels of a stored glyph on a pixel-by-pixel basis”, and “increase OCR accuracy”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “payouts based on identity verification”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “payouts based on identity verification” using computer technology (e.g., “a processor” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 11 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, for paragraph 21 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025, Applicant arguments are persuasive to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Specification, (PG Pub US 20240202724 A1, para 54), which recites “… an OCR process will include an OCR algorithm. Exemplary OCR algorithms include matrix matching process and/or feature extraction processes. Matrix matching may involve comparing an image to a stored glyph on a pixel-by-pixel basis …”; and (‘724 A1, para 58), which recites “… Image may be any image containing data that may be extracted by processor 108 using OCR …”, which provides the support for the claim language “implementing an OCR algorithm …”. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 21 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, for paragraph 22 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Claim 1 recites, “post-processing … to increase OCR accuracy by constraining the output to a lexicon containing a set of words whose occurrence is permitted.” In order for the specification, (PG Pub US 20240202724 A1), to be fully supportive of the limitation “post-processing … to increase OCR accuracy by constraining the output to a lexicon containing a set of words whose occurrence is permitted” as being characterized by the Applicant, then the specification, (‘724 A1), would have to disclose how the limitation “post-processing … to increase OCR accuracy by constraining the output to a lexicon containing a set of words whose occurrence is permitted” is being performed. However, specification, (‘724 A1, para 57), describes that OCR accuracy can be increased if output is constrained by a lexicon, but not necessarily how constraining the output to a lexicon increases OCR accuracy. Specification, (‘724 A1, para 57), is silent and lacks sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how increasing OCR accuracy is a result of constraining the output to a lexicon, as required by the limitation of the claim. Therefore, this remains an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 11. Dependent claims 4, 6, 21-22, and 24-25, which depend from claim 1; and dependent claims 14, 16-19, and 26-27, which depend from claim 11, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I). Examiner hereby maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 22 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated August 12, 2025, Applicant argument is persuasive to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The present specification supports an interpretation, completing a fair read of the specification, where the phrase “cause the processor to” denotes the processor performing a single step or sequence as being claimed (PG Pub US 20240202724 A1, para 37). As a result, the disputed claim language reaches well beyond merely describing an intended use since the claims actively recite a processor performing the claimed steps. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claim Interpretation - Optional Language
Claim 1, recites the limitation: “suppressing initiation of the payout when the verifier is classified as fraudulent”. Therefore, “suppressing initiation of the payout” does not necessarily occur in the case “the verifier is not classified as fraudulent”, and cannot differentiate the claims from the prior art. (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 4, 6, 21-22, and 24-25 are directed to “a method”, and claims 11, 14, 16-19, and 26-27 are directed to “an apparatus”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “payouts based on identity verification”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving, by a processor, a request for a payout and life event data from a second entity; verifying, by the processor, the life event data as a [AltContent: ]function of an authorization credential associated with a verifier, wherein the authorization credential is contained in a data packet appended to an IP address associated with the verifier, wherein verifying the life event data comprises: analyzing a textual input received from the verifier, wherein analyzing the textual input comprises converting the textual input into machine-encoded text by an optical character recognition (OCR) process, wherein converting the textual input into the machine-encoded text comprises converting images of text in the textual input into the machine-encoded text and further comprises: pre-processing image components of the images by de-skewing at least one of the image components by applying a transform operation to the at least one of the image components; implementing an OCR algorithm comprising a matrix matching process by comparing pixels of at least one of the pre-processed images to pixels of a stored glyph on a pixel-by-pixel basis; and post-processing an output of the matrix matching process to increase OCR accuracy by constraining the output to a lexicon containing a set of words whose occurrence is permitted; completing at least part of the verification by comparing at least a character string of the analyzed textual input to character strings associated with one or more authorized users; verifying the IP address by determining time elapsed between transmission of the authorization credential from the verifier and receipt by the processor; and verifying the authorization credential as a function of a classification of the IP address, wherein the verification comprises flagging authorization credentials of fraudulent verifiers, wherein the verification further comprises flagging authorization credentials of fraudulent verifiers where the time elapsed is more than an expected amount; generating, by the processor, one or more cryptographic hashes that are representative of the verification of the life event data; classifying the verifier as authorized or fraudulent as a function of: a comparison of the character string derived from the OCR process; and the determined time elapsed between transmission and receipt of the authorization credential; suppressing initiation of the payout when the verifier is classified as fraudulent; initiating, by the processor, the payout between a first entity and the second entity as a function of the determination of validity of the life event data and the request; and performing, by the processor, the payout between the first entity and the second entity as a function of the determination of validity of the life event data”, which represent the abstract idea of “payouts based on identity verification”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a processor”, “a data packet appended to an IP address associated with the verifier”, “machine-encoded text by an optical character recognition (OCR) process”, “comparing pixels of at least one of the pre-processed images to pixels of a stored glyph on a pixel-by-pixel basis”, and “increase OCR accuracy”, amounts to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “payouts based on identity verification”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “payouts based on identity verification” using computer technology (e.g., “a processor” and “an IP address”). Therefore, as the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 11 also recites the abstract idea of “payouts based on identity verification”, as well as the additional elements of “an apparatus for identification using third-party verifiers, comprising: a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the processor, the memory comprising instructions configuring the processor to: …”, “in a data packet appended to an IP address associated with the verifier”, “into machine-encoded text by an optical character recognition (OCR) process”, “comparing pixels of at least one of the pre-processed images to pixels of a stored glyph on a pixel-by-pixel basis”, and “increase OCR accuracy”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “payouts based on identity verification”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “payouts based on identity verification” using computer technology (e.g., “a processor” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 11 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 4, 6, 14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-27 further describe the abstract idea of “payouts based on identity verification”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1 and 11.
Dependent claims 6, 14, 16-18, 21, 24, and 26 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “payouts based on identity verification”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claim 4 recites a new additional element of “adding dummy pixels”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 19 and 22 recite a new additional element of “a digital fingerprint”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Dependent claims 25 and 27 recite a new additional element of “a fraudulent IP address”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field.
Hence, claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-27 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zankat et al (U. S. Patent No. 10803527 B1) – Insurance Claim Submission Using Captured Images And Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
Zankat recites methods, systems, apparatus, and non-transitory media for submitting an insurance claim. The described techniques include receiving one or more forms (and/or remote electronic access to such) from an external computing device to facilitate filing of an insurance claim associated with a vehicular accident. The forms may include one or more data fields corresponding to data used to process an insurance claim. To fill in the insurance form data, the mobile computing device may capture of one or more images associated with the vehicular accident. One or more object recognition and/or optical character recognition (OCR) processes may be applied to the one or more images to extract image data, which may be used to populate one or more insurance claim form fields. Once completed, the insurance claim form may be sent to an insurer from the mobile computing device to facilitate submission of the insurance claim.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights