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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Remarks pages 1-3, filed 12/12/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 13-16, 18 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Maruyama et al US 20030046351.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant states that the code of prior art reference Osborn is not unique to a type of document (Applicants Remarks pages 2-3). Maruyama et al teaches document management system 20 according to the present invention comprises storage means 27 (paragraph 0049). storage means 27 stores documents obviously, but it also stores a database (paragraph 0050). the database includes an index table, (paragraph 0051). the index table stores for each document, a type code which indicates a type of the document, a document number, a revision code, a document title, the department code of the department which created the document, and a date of scheduled revision of the document, with the indexing number unique to each document serving as the key (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant states that the code of prior art reference Osborn is not unique to a type of document (Applicants Remarks pages 2-3). Maruyama et al teaches document management system 20 according to the present invention comprises storage means 27 (paragraph 0049). storage means 27 stores documents obviously, but it also stores a database (paragraph 0050). the database includes an index table, (paragraph 0051). the index table stores for each document, a type code which indicates a type of the document, a document number, a revision code, a document title, the department code of the department which created the document, and a date of scheduled revision of the document, with the indexing number unique to each document serving as the key (paragraph 0054)
Applicant states that Osbond does not disclose storing a plurality of unit verification codes, each of the verification codes corresponding to a different document (Applicants Remarks page 2). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Maruyama et al teaches document management system 20 according to the present invention comprises storage means 27 (paragraph 0049). storage means 27 stores documents obviously, but it also stores a database (paragraph 0050). the database includes an index table, (paragraph 0051). the index table stores for each document, a type code which indicates a type of the document, a document number, a revision code, a document title, the department code of the department which created the document, and a date of scheduled revision of the document, with the indexing number unique to each document serving as the key (paragraph 0054).
In Applicants Remarks, Applicant states that, The Examiner stated that Osborn “fails to teach a communication interface; an application stored in the storage device and including executable code that when executed causes the processor to: receive the code information from the user device and compare the received document verification code to the verification codes stored in the storage device;”. The Smith reference discloses a client device 202 operated by a user 201 and including a communication interface 225 coupled via network 110 to a web server 112. In col. 16, at lines 59-62, Smith describes the user sending a first authentication factor used to identify the user. Smith is not sending a document verification code (Applicants Remarks pages 3). Examiner agrees that Smith is not sending a document verification code but Smith sends a factor to identify the user. Smith in combination with Maruyama would allow Smith to send a document indexing number as taught in Maruyama paragraph 0070.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn et al US 2023/0325839 in view of Maruyama et al US 20030046351 further in view of Smith et al US 11051163 further in view Siddhartha US 2020/0104192.
Regarding claim 1, Osborn et al teaches a computing system for remotely verifying a document (abstract), the computing system comprising:
a processor operatively coupled with the storage device and the communication interface, the processor adapted to be operatively coupled over a communication channel with a user device by the communication interface (one or more processors of a computer system may be included in a single computing device or distributed among a plurality of computing devices. A memory of the computer system may include the respective memory of each computing device of the plurality of computing devices. (paragraph 0125); and
Although Osborn et al teaches the instrument with the code may be generated and printed based on interactions between the account holder and an employee, such as a teller, that is operating a financial institution computing device,
Osborn et al fails to teach a storage device storing a plurality of unique document verification codes, each of the unique document verification codes corresponding to a different document, and the storage device storing data associated with each of the unique document verification codes;
wherein the user responds to the user instruction by inputting the document verification code from the user device in coordination with a downloaded application stored on the user device, the user device then transmitting the document verification code as code information to the processor via the communication channel;
receive the code information from the user device and compare the received document verification code to the verification codes stored in the storage device;
Maruyama et al teaches a storage device storing a plurality of unique document verification codes, each of the unique document verification codes corresponding to a different document, and the storage device storing data associated with each of the unique document verification codes (document management system 20 according to the present invention comprises storage means 27 (paragraph 0049). storage means 27 stores documents obviously, but it also stores a database (paragraph 0050). the database includes an index table, (paragraph 0051). the index table stores for each document, a type code which indicates a type of the document, a document number, a revision code, a document title, the department code of the department which created the document, and a date of scheduled revision of the document, with the indexing number unique to each document serving as the key (paragraph 0054);
wherein the user responds to the user instruction by inputting the document verification code from the user device in coordination with a downloaded application stored on the user device, the user device then transmitting the document verification code as code information to the processor via the communication channel (the document registration means 21 displays a new registration screen on the user's terminal 10. On this new registration screen, the user selects (input) the type, revision code and the department which created the document, inputs the document number, title, and revision cycle, and further (document verification code), specifies where the document is stored now. The user finally selects "registration", upon which the information selected and inputted by the user is sent to the document registration means 21 (paragraph 0065). The document registration means 21 puts a unique indexing number to the information received, and stores the information together with the indexing number, at the index table shown in FIG. 4. At the same time, the ID of this user is stored as a register's ID in a user ID field of the index table. Further, the document file is downloaded from the place of document file storage specified by the user, (paragraph 0066);
receive the code information from the user device and compare the received document verification code to the verification codes stored in the storage device (document-type acquiring module 135 acquires (receives) the type of the document received by the document registering module 120. (paragraph 0033). The searching module 140 searches the document-type-management-data storing module 155 to retrieve the document type acquired by the document-type acquiring module 135. Specifically, the searching module 140 searches a document-type-code column 710 (or a document-type-name column 720) in a document-type management table 700 (described later) to retrieve a target document type (paragraph 0034) Note: by searching the document type management data storing module 155, the searching module 140 is comparing the acquired type of document information to the stored document information;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Osborn et al with: a storage device storing a plurality of unique document verification codes, each of the unique document verification codes corresponding to a different document, and the storage device storing data associated with each of the unique document verification codes; wherein the user responds to the user instruction by inputting the document verification code from the user device in coordination with a downloaded application stored on the user device, the user device then transmitting the document verification code as code information to the processor via the communication channel; receive the code information from the user device and compare the received document verification code to the verification codes stored in the storage device;
;
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify and authenticate a check.
Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al fails to teach a communication interface;
an application stored in the storage device and including executable code that when executed causes the processor to:
Smith et al teaches a communication interface (communication interface 225 (column 9, lines 19-22);
an application stored in the storage device and including executable code that (receiving, via one or more processors and/or associated transceivers (such as by a mobile device processor) and/or via wireless communication and/or data transmission over one or more radio links or digital communication channels, an email associated with remotely or locally downloading and/or accessing an Application (such as via a wired or wireless communication network, e.g., internet), the email including (a) a download link used to download and/or access the Application, (b) a verification code associated with the Application, and/or (c) a user identifier (column 16, lines 59-62),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al with: a communication interface; an application stored in the storage device and including executable code that when executed causes the processor to;
The reason of doing so would be to communicate and transmit information between devices.
Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al fails to teach send a prompt to the user device causing the user device to display a user instruction regarding initiating a verification of a document accessible to the user, the document displaying a document verification code;
transmit to the user device via the communication channel a message indicating that the document is valid when the received document verification code matches one of the verification codes stored in the storage device or indicating that the document is not valid when the received document verification code does not match any of the verification codes stored in the storage device;
Siddhartha US 2020/0104192 send a prompt to the user device causing the user device to display a user instruction regarding initiating a verification of a document accessible to the user, the document displaying a document verification code that was applied when the document was created (remote system 120 may then generate a verification message 230 to transmit to the user device 110 that includes the selectable-link 231. The user 10 may then indicate selection of the selectable-link 231 to verify possession of the user device 110. The message 230 may be configured to supply a verification code 236 (paragraph 0030);
transmit to the user device via the communication channel a message indicating that the document is valid when the received document verification code matches one of the verification codes stored in the storage device or indicating that the document is not valid when the received document verification code does not match any of the verification codes stored in the storage device (the validator 410 may determine whether a period of time from when the message 230 is transmitted to the user device 110 to when the confirmation message 420 is received from the user device 110 satisfies (matches) the validity period 238. The confirmation message 420 may include a single token indicating the verification code 236 and the validity period 238 associated with the verification code 236. when the period of time from when the message 230 is transmitted dissatisfies the validity period 238, a second message is transmitted to the user device 110 using the unique feature 222. The second message includes a new verification code 236 used to verify that the unique feature 222 is associated with the user device 110. The validity period 238 may also be referred to as a validity period threshold 238. After one or more failures to register (e.g., the validity period 238 is dissatisfied), the user 10 may be required to manually enter the new verification code 236 from the second (or subsequent) message (paragraph 0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al method of send a prompt to the user device causing the user device to display a user instruction regarding initiating a verification of a document accessible to the user, the document displaying a document verification code; transmit to the user device via the communication channel a message indicating that the document is valid when the received document verification code matches one of the verification codes stored in the storage device or indicating that the document is not valid when the received document verification code does not match any of the verification codes stored in the storage device;
The reason of doing so would be to so that a user can be notified of the status of a check validity.
Regarding claim 2, Osborn et al teaches wherein the user responds to the user instruction by capturing, by a camera of the user device in coordination with a downloaded application stored on the user device, an electronic image of the document including the document verification code, the user device then transmitting the electronic image to the processor via the communication channel as the code information, the processor receiving the electronic image, extracting the document verification code from the electronic image and comparing the extracted document verification code to the unique document verification codes stored in the storage device (The account holder may then request the kiosk generate a cashier's check by entering, into the application 120, the account from which to pull the funds for the instrument, the amount, the payee, and/or a memo. A second machine-readable code may then be generated and displayed on a user interface of the application 120. The account holder may hold the account holder computing device 102 up to the scanning mechanism 124 on the kiosk such that the kiosk may capture the second code. Once the kiosk captures the second code and one of the server-side systems 112 is able to perform an authentication using the first code captured by and received from the account holder computing device 102 and the second code captured by and received from the kiosk, the kiosk may be instructed to generate and/or print an image of the instrument. (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 3, Osborn et al teaches wherein the document is a cashier’s check (the instrument is a cashier's check (paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 6, Osborn et al teaches wherein the document verification code is at least one of a number, an alphanumeric phrase, a bar code, a QR code, and a holographic image (code may include a quick response (QR) code or a bar code (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 8, Osborn et al teaches wherein the data includes an image of the associated issued document (the application 120 may receive and/or generate an image of the instrument that includes the code to be printed on the instrument, and instruct the printer 129 to print the instrument with the code (paragraph 0046)
Regarding claim 10, Osborn et al teaches wherein the processor transmits the message indicating that the document is not valid when the document verification code matches one of the unique document verification codes stored in the storage device and the document is no longer valid (Application user interface 800B is an example user interface displayed in response to a determination that the interaction is illegitimate. For example, application user interface 800B may include an indication 810 that the interaction is illegitimate (fig 8b and 8c and paragraph 0121).
Regarding claim 11, Osborn et al teaches A method of remotely verifying a document (abstract), the method comprising steps of:
creating and issuing a document displaying a document verification code (the instrument with the code may be generated and printed based on interactions between the account holder and an employee, (paragraph 0029) ;
Although Osborn et al teaches the instrument with the code may be generated and printed based on interactions between the account holder and an employee, such as a teller, that is operating a financial institution computing device,
Osborn et al fails to teach storing the document verification code in a storage device as one unique document verification code of a plurality of unique document verification codes;
responding to the user instruction by entering the document verification code in the user device and stored on the user device, an electronic image of the document verification code on the document, wherein the downloaded application comprises computer-executable code that, when executed by a processor of the user device, provides the user-interface and responds to the entered document verification code and/or the electronic image to generate code information corresponding to the document verification code;
receiving the code information by the computing system, the computing system extracting the document verification code from the code information and comparing the document verification code to a plurality of verification codes stored in a storage device
Maruyama et al teaches storing the document verification code in a storage device as one unique document verification code of a plurality of unique document verification codes (document management system 20 according to the present invention comprises storage means 27 (paragraph 0049). storage means 27 stores documents obviously, but it also stores a database (paragraph 0050). the database includes an index table, (paragraph 0051). the index table stores for each document, a type code which indicates a type of the document, a document number, a revision code, a document title, the department code of the department which created the document, and a date of scheduled revision of the document, with the indexing number unique to each document serving as the key (paragraph 0054);
responding to the user instruction by entering the document verification code in the user device and stored on the user device, an electronic image of the document verification code on the document, wherein the downloaded application comprises computer-executable code that, when executed by a processor of the user device, provides the user-interface and responds to the entered document verification code and/or the electronic image to generate code information corresponding to the document verification code (the document registration means 21 displays a new registration screen on the user's terminal 10. On this new registration screen, the user selects (input) the type, revision code and the department which created the document, inputs the document number, title, and revision cycle, and further (document verification code), specifies where the document is stored now. The user finally selects "registration", upon which the information selected and inputted by the user is sent to the document registration means 21 (paragraph 0065). The document registration means 21 puts a unique indexing number to the information received, and stores the information together with the indexing number, at the index table shown in FIG. 4. At the same time, the ID of this user is stored as a register's ID in a user ID field of the index table. Further, the document file is downloaded from the place of document file storage specified by the user, (paragraph 0066)
receiving the code information by the computing system, the computing system extracting the document verification code from the code information and comparing the document verification code to a plurality of verification codes stored in a storage device (document-type acquiring module 135 acquires (receives) the type of the document received by the document registering module 120. (paragraph 0033). The searching module 140 searches the document-type-management-data storing module 155 to retrieve the document type acquired by the document-type acquiring module 135. Specifically, the searching module 140 searches a document-type-code column 710 (or a document-type-name column 720) in a document-type management table 700 (described later) to retrieve a target document type (paragraph 0034) Note: by searching the document type management data storing module 155, the searching module 140 is comparing the acquired type of document information to the stored document information; and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al with: transmitting the code information to a computing system by operation of the user-interface and a communication circuitry of the user device
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify and authenticate a check.
Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al fails to teach transmitting the code information to a computing system by operation of the user-interface and a communication circuitry of the user device
Smith et al teaches transmitting the code information to a computing system by operation of the user-interface and a communication circuitry of the user device (transmit the verification code to the remote server; and are granted permission to download the Application to the mobile device, and/or to remotely access the Application once the remote server verifies the verification code (column 17, lines 35-40) ;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al with: transmitting the code information to a computing system by operation of the user-interface and a communication circuitry of the user device
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify and authenticate a check.
Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al fails to teach displaying, by a user-interface of a user device, a prompt, wherein the prompt provides user instruction regarding initiating a verification of a document displaying a document verification code;
by capturing, by a camera of the user device in coordination with a downloaded application
the computing system transmitting a message to the user device indicating that the document is valid when the extracted document verification code matches one of the verification codes stored in the storage device or indicating that the document is not valid when the extracted document verification code does not match any of the verification codes stored in the storage device
Siddhartha teaches displaying, by a user-interface of a user device, a prompt, wherein the prompt provides user instruction regarding initiating a verification of a document displaying a document verification code (remote system 120 may then generate a verification message 230 to transmit to the user device 110 that includes the selectable-link 231. The user 10 may then indicate selection of the selectable-link 231 to verify possession of the user device 110. The message 230 may be configured to supply a verification code 236 (paragraph 0030);
by capturing, by a camera of the user device in coordination with a downloaded application
the computing system transmitting a message to the user device indicating that the document is valid when the extracted document verification code matches one of the verification codes stored in the storage device or indicating that the document is not valid when the extracted document verification code does not match any of the verification codes stored in the storage device (the validator 410 may determine whether a period of time from when the message 230 is transmitted to the user device 110 to when the confirmation message 420 is received from the user device 110 satisfies (matches) the validity period 238. The confirmation message 420 may include a single token indicating the verification code 236 and the validity period 238 associated with the verification code 236. when the period of time from when the message 230 is transmitted dissatisfies the validity period 238, a second message is transmitted to the user device 110 using the unique feature 222. The second message includes a new verification code 236 used to verify that the unique feature 222 is associated with the user device 110. The validity period 238 may also be referred to as a validity period threshold 238. After one or more failures to register (e.g., the validity period 238 is dissatisfied), the user 10 may be required to manually enter the new verification code 236 from the second (or subsequent) message (paragraph 0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al method of displaying, by a user-interface of a user device, a prompt, wherein the prompt provides user instruction regarding initiating a verification of a document displaying a document verification code; by capturing, by a camera of the user device in coordination with a downloaded application the computing system transmitting a message to the user device indicating that the document is valid when the extracted document verification code matches one of the verification codes stored in the storage device or indicating that the document is not valid when the extracted document verification code does not match any of the verification codes stored in the storage device
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify and authenticate a check.
Regarding claim 13, Osborn et al teaches wherein the document verification code is at least one of a number, an alphanumeric phrase, a bar code, a QR code, and a holographic image (code may include a quick response (QR) code or a bar code (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 14, Osborn et al teaches wherein the document is a cashier’s check and including updating data in the storage device to indicate that the cashier’s check is not valid when the cashier’s check has been processed for payment (if any information is incorrect, the account holder may simply not facilitate the reading of the code such that the original cashier's check continues to remain invalid, and proceed with requesting a new cashier's check with the correct information for the same interaction (paragraph 0070).
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn et al US 2023/0325839 in view of Maruyama et al US 20030046351 further in view of Smith et al US 11051163 further in view Siddhartha US 2020/0104192further in view of Takiguchi US 20050281449.
Regarding claim 4, Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al further in view of Siddhartha teach all of the limitations of claim 1
Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al further in view of Siddhartha fails to teach wherein the cashier's check has a magnetic ink character recognition line and the document verification code is positioned adjacent a right end of the line.
Takiguchi teaches wherein the cashier's check has a magnetic ink character recognition line and the document verification code is positioned adjacent a right end of the line (A bank code, account number, and other information are printed with magnetic ink characters at a specific position (paragraph 0004) and he account number and bank code for the account and bank on which the check 20 is drawn are printed in magnetic ink characters in the MICR recording area 23 (paragraph 0040 and fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al further in view of Siddhartha with wherein the cashier's check has a magnetic ink character recognition line and the document verification code is positioned adjacent a right end of the line.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify and authenticate a check.
Regarding claim 5, Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al further in view of Siddhartha teach all of the limitations of claim 1
Osborn et al in view of Smith et al further in view of Siddhartha fails to teach wherein the document verification code is formed in a same font as numbers in the magnetic ink character recognition line.
Takiguchi teaches wherein the document verification code is formed in a same font as numbers in the magnetic ink character recognition line (fig 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al further in view of Siddhartha with wherein the document verification code is formed in a same font as numbers in the magnetic ink character recognition line.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify and authenticate a check.
Regarding claim 9, Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al further in view of Siddhartha teach all of the limitations of claim 1
Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al further in view of Siddhartha fails to teach wherein the issued documents are cashier's checks and the data includes information displayed on a front side of each of the cashier's checks.
Takiguchi teaches wherein the issued documents are cashier's checks and the data includes information displayed on a front side of each of the cashier's checks (fig 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Osborn et al in view of Maruyama et al further in view of Smith et al further in view of Siddhartha with wherein the issued documents are cashier's checks and the data includes information displayed on a front side of each of the cashier's checks.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify and authenticate a check.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16, 18 and 19 are allowed.
Claim 16. (currently amended) A method of remotely verifying a document, the method comprising steps of:
creating a document;
placing a document verification code on the document;
storing the document verification code as a unique document verification code in a storage device;
issuing the document with the document verification code;
receiving a document verification code from a user device;
comparing the received document verification code with the unique document verification code stored in the storage device; and
transmitting a message to the user device indicating that the received document verification code is associated with a valid document when the received document verification code matches the unique document verification code stored in the storage device, indicating that the received document verification code is not associated with a valid document is not valid when the received document verification code does not match the unique document verification code stored in the storage device, and indicating that the document is not valid when the received document verification code matches the unique document verification code stored in the storage device and the document is no longer valid.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Osborn et al US 2023/0325839 discloses Disclosed are methods and systems for determining legitimacy of interactions. For instance, a request for an instrument to complete an interaction may be received from an account holder computing device, information associated with the request may be stored within a data storage entry, and a code including a uniform resource locator to a web application may be printed on the instrument. Subsequent to a printing of the instrument that includes the code, an access to the web application by a computing device of a recipient or an entity associated with the recipient of the instrument may be detected in response to the computing device reading the code (abstract)
Maruyama et al US 20030046351 disclose A computerized document management system includes a database, mailing means, document registration means, delivery management means and deadline management means. The document registration means makes a preliminary registration of information about a document onto the database and asks a user for an approval of this preliminary registered document using the mailing means (abstract)
Smith et al US 11051163 discloses a system for one-click two-factor includes a processor and a non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including: (i) receiving an access request from a user, the access request including a first authentication factor; (ii) generating a second authentication factor and a hyperlink that includes the second authentication factor; (iii) providing the hyperlink that includes the second authentication factor to a client device associated with the user; (iv) automatically receiving the second authentication factor in response to selection of the hyperlink by the user; and (v) verifying the first authentication factor and the second authentication factor to authenticate the identity of the user (abstract)
Siddhartha US 2020/0104192 disclose a method for automatically verifying a message using a remote system includes receiving, at a remote system, a request to launch an application from a current user to communicate where the request includes a unique feature associated with a potential user's device that is required for registration. The method includes generating a selectable-link, and transmitting a first message that includes the selectable-link to the potential user's device. The first message is configured to cause the potential user's device to display the link, launch the application in response to receiving selection indication of the selectable-link, and transmit a verification code to the remote system. The method further includes registering the potential user's device in response to receiving the verification code (abstract)
However, Osborn et al US 2023/0325839, Maruyama et al US 20030046351, Smith et al US 11051163 further in view Siddhartha US 2020/0104192 or no prior art cited alone or in combination provides the motivation to teach transmitting a message to the user device indicating that the received document verification code is associated with a valid document when the received document verification code matches the unique document verification code stored in the storage device, indicating that the received document verification code is not associated with a valid document is not valid when the received document verification code does not match the unique document verification code stored in the storage device, and indicating that the document is not valid when the received document verification code matches the unique document verification code stored in the storage device and the document is no longer valid.
It is inherent that claims 18 and 19 are allowed
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 MICHAEL L BURLESON whose telephone number is (571)272-7460. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 530pm.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270- 3438. 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.
Michael Burleson
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2683
Michael Burleson
March 21, 2026
/MICHAEL BURLESON/
/AKWASI M SARPONG/ SPE, Art Unit 2681