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 .
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 10/21/2025. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-14, 17 and 20 have been amended. No newly added and/or cancelled claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-12 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as set forth in the previous action.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for verifying an age-restricted transaction.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“receiving…an image of a machine-readable code generated from the single-use token;
extracting the single-use token from the machine-readable code in the image of the machine-readable code using a conversion algorithm to convert the machine-readable code into data values that make up the single-use token;
determining whether the extracted single-use token matches a valid single-use token stored in the token database;
in response to determining that the inputted token matches a valid single- use token stored in the token database, sending a first notification to the online transaction application indicating that the user is age verified to proceed with the online transaction for one or more age-restricted products; and
in response to determining that the inputted token does not match any valid single-use token stored in the token database, sending a second notification to the online transaction application indicating that the user is not age verified to proceed with the online transaction for the one or more age-restricted products.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (machine-readable code), 2) processing the received data using mathematical operation to retrieve token, 3) comparing the retrieved token with stored token, and 4) generating and transmitting result (valid or invalid).
The above steps describe the process of verifying and validating an age-restricted transaction. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (commercial or legal interaction) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions (sales activities or behavior), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The cited claims recite additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (one or more processors and memory) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the step of “providing a single-use token associated with a pseudonymous persona code from a token database to a mobile device of a user…” represents transmitting data between two devices, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. “Transmitting/obtaining information over a network” has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, the computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 20 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 13, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0253846 (Tobb), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0319192 (Rodriguez et al. – hereinafter Rodriguez).
Referring to claim 1, Tobb discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that upon execution cause one or more processors to perform acts comprising:
receiving, from an additional device handling the transaction, an image of a machine-readable code generated from the single-use token; [See paragraphs 0065, 0079, 0132, 0133]
determining whether the extracted single-use token matches a valid single-use token stored in the token database; [See paragraphs 0065, 0133, 0135-0138]
in response to determining that the extracted single-use inputted token matches a valid single-use token stored in the token database, sending a first notification that causes the additional device to indicate that the user is age verified with respect to the transaction for the one or more age-restricted products; and [See paragraphs 0065, 0079, 0132, 0133, 0137, 0138]
in response to determining that the extracted single-use token does not match any valid single-use token stored in the token database, sending a second notification that causes the additional device to indicate that the user is not age verified with respect to the transaction for the one or more age-restricted products. [See paragraphs 0065, 0079, 0132, 0133, 0137, 0138]
Tobb does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
providing a single-use token associated with a pseudonymous persona code from a token database to a mobile device of a user for use in age verification in association with a transaction for one or more age-restricted products; and
extracting the single-use token from the machine-readable code in the image of the machine-readable code by using a conversion algorithm to convert the machine- readable code into data values that make up the single-use token.
Rodriguez teaches a system with the limitations:
providing a single-use token associated with a pseudonymous persona code from a token database to a mobile device of a user for use in age verification in association with a transaction for one or more age-restricted products; and [See paragraphs 0088-0091, 0094, 0103-0109]
extracting the single-use token from the machine-readable code in the image of the machine-readable code by using a conversion algorithm to convert the machine- readable code into data values that make up the single-use token. [See paragraphs 0129-0138]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Tobb to have incorporated a verification token as in Rodriguez with the motivation of verifying the sale of an age-restricted item. [See Tobb paragraphs 0063-0065; Rodriguez paragraphs 0090-0096]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the acts further comprise receiving a request for a single-use token for age verification in association with the transaction, the request including the pseudonymous persona code, and wherein the providing includes providing the single-use token in response to the request. [See Rodriguez paragraphs 0091-0096, 0119-0120]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the acts further comprise following the sending the first notification: invalidating the single-use token that matches the extracted single-use token; and generating a new valid single-use token and associating the new valid single-use token with the pseudonymous persona code for storage in the token database. [See Rodriguez paragraphs 0125-0128]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the pseudonymous persona code is generated based on information encoded in a machine-detectable representation on a government-issued identification card that belongs to the user. [See Tobb paragraph 0079]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 4, wherein the machine- detectable representation includes a PDF417 barcode. [See Tobb paragraph 0079]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 4, wherein the information encoded in the machine-detectable representation includes a date of birth of the user, and wherein the pseudonymous persona code is generated at least following a determination based on the date of birth that the user meets a predetermined age threshold for purchasing age-restricted products. [See Tobb paragraph 0089]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, wherein the pseudonymous persona code is generated following the determination based on the date of birth that the user meets a predetermined age threshold for purchasing age-restricted products and a further determination based on the information that the government-issued identification card is authentic. [See Tobb paragraph 0089]
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Tobb and Wesby discloses the one or more computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the machine- readable code is generated by the mobile device from the single-use token associated with a pseudonymous persona code. [See Tobb paragraphs 0055, 0079]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the transaction is an in-store transaction at a retail store for the one or more age-restricted products and the additional device is a point-of-sale (POS) device, and wherein the first notification causes the POS device to indicate that the user is age verified to purchase the one ormore age- restricted products in the in-store transaction. [See Tobb paragraph 0076]
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the transaction is a delivery transaction for one or more age-restricted products, and the additional device is a delivery tracking device, and wherein the first notification causes the delivery tracking device to indicate that the user is age verified to receive delivery of the one or more age- restricted products. [See Tobb paragraph 0079]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the inputted token is used to track transaction details related to the transaction for the one or more age-restricted products when the inputted token matches a valid single-use token stored in the token database. [See Tobb paragraph 0079]
Referring to claims 13 and 16-19, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1, 2-4 and 6, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the server of claim 13, wherein the inputted token is sent by the local computing device to the online transaction application. [See Tobb paragraph 0079]
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the server of claim 13, wherein the one or more age-restricted products include at least one physical product or at least one online content accessible via the local computing device. [See Tobb paragraphs 0063, 0076, 0085]
Referring to claim 20, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobb in view of Rodriguez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0234705 (Wesby).
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the machine-readable code is scanned by the additional device handling the transaction following a verification that a self-portrait photograph display on the screen of the mobile device along with the machine-readable code matches a facial appearance of the user.
Wesby teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the machine-readable code is scanned by the additional device handling the transaction following a verification that a self-portrait photograph display on the screen of the mobile device along with the machine-readable code matches a facial appearance of the user. [See Wesby paragraph 0090]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combination of Tobb and Rodriguez to have incorporated a verification token as in Wesby with the motivation of verifying the sale of an age-restricted item. [See Tobb paragraphs 0063-0065; Wesby paragraphs 0056-0058, 0070]
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that these arguments are directed to newly added amendments, and have been addressed in the updated rejection.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
In Content Extraction, the court held that extracting information from a document using existing scanner or processing technology was well-known in the art. The court explained that there is no “inventive concept” in using generic computer tools to perform well-known, routine and conventional activities (extracting and storing data from documents using scanning and processing technology) commonly used in the industry.
Similar to Content Extraction, the claim uses a conversion algorithm (mathematical operation) to extract (data) single-use token from an electronic image (machine-readable code). See Applicant’s Spec. paragraphs 0049, 0050, 0057.
Accordingly, the newly added limitation, “extracting the single-use token from the machine-readable code in the image of the machine-readable code using a conversion algorithm to convert the machine-readable code…” is encompassed in the identified abstract idea, and does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627