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
Claims 1-21 are currently pending in application 18/176,328.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: request determined data needed to respond to the versioned request.
Independent Claims 1 and 15 recite “determine data requests needed to respond to the versioned request; determine whether all responses have been received for the data requests”.
However, the Examiner is unclear as to who the data requests are sent to, and when/ how the data requests are sent. The claim appears to omit an element.
Claims 2-14 and 16-21 are also rejected as being dependent from claims 1, 8, 15, under the same rationale and reasoning as identified above.
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claims 1 and 15 also recite “in response to determining all responses have not been received for the data requests, submitting the data requests that have been received to one or more data analyzers.”
However, the Examiner is unclear what happens to the data requests sent to data analyzers, and what the data analyzers and analyzing to determine. Applicant’s specification generally describes the use of one or more data analyzers in many possible applications (i.e. Para 0034-0037).
For Example, in one recited embodiment, “the one or more computing devices 138 can include different types of data analyzers. In some embodiments, the one or more computing devices 138 can include data analyzers having different purposes (i.e., for verifying a name on the identification document 100, for verifying a picture on the identification document 100, etc.). In some embodiments, the one or more computing devices 138 can include one or more data analyzers configured to, for example, confirm whether the identification document 100 is valid; parse and remove personal information (e.g., name, address, gender, eye color, combinations thereof, or the like) retrieved from the identification document 100; validate a name and address of the identification document 100; verify whether an image from the computing devices 132 matches an image on the identification document 100 (e.g., verify a self-photograph (“selfie”) of an individual matches the photograph on the identification document 100); analyze a risk of the individual associated with the identification document 100; verify whether the individual is on one or more lists (e.g., a watch list, a criminal list, a banned person list, combinations thereof, or the like); confirm one or more details of the computing devices 132 having submitted the request; verification among multiple data analyzers (e.g., does information obtained from an optical character recognition (OCR) of the identification document 100 match information obtained from a barcode or other code on the identification document 100); combinations thereof, or the like. As noted above, these are examples of the data analyzers on the one or more computing devices 138. The functionalities can be combined into a single data analyzer; split across multiple data analyzers; included in different versions of the data analyzers; combinations thereof, or the like.” (Applicant’s Specification, Para 0036)
In another embodiment, “in response to determining the responses have not been received for all of the data requests, the method 200 includes submitting the data requests that can be submitted to one or more data analyzers (e.g., one or more computing devices 138 in FIG. 3) by the response handler (e.g., the request handler 148 in FIG. 3) and response back that the request was accepted or is still pending.” (Applicant’s Specification, Para 0061)
As Claimed, the Examiner is unclear as to the type of analyzer being claimed, and whether the “analyzer” is analyzing the responses based on the versioned request, or if the “analyzer” is a response handler and determines (and sends a response back) as to whether the request was accepted or is still pending.”
Claims 2-14 and 16-21 are also rejected as being dependent from claims 1, 8, 15, under the same rationale and reasoning as identified above.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-21 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1-14 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 15-21 are directed toward a process (method). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-21 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 15 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of receiving, processing, and formatting data.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A method, comprising:
receiving a “versioned request” for verification of an identification document, wherein the versioned request comprises at least one instruction specifying a format for a response to the versioned request and content to be included in the response [Applicant Spec Para 0012: “… methods can be applied to physical identification documents.”; The request is "versioned," meaning it includes information about its specific version (Could be a specific request form/ template). This versioned request is the inclusion of at least one instruction that dictates the desired format for the response]; (Receiving data/requests)
determining data requests needed to respond to the versioned request (No detail is provided in Applicant’s Specification explaining how this determination is completed, the Examiner is therefore taking a broad view of the determination step to include receiving needed data requests from users); (Mental process - Collecting information/evaluation)
determining whether responses have been received for the data requests; (Routine activity - Monitoring/status checking)
in response to determining all responses have not been received for the data requests, submitting the data requests that have been received to one or more data analyzers; (Data processing/analysis - Algorithm execution)
in response to determining the responses have been received for the data requests, format the response to include the content and according to the format specified by the versioned request [form/ template]; and (Data handling - Formatting data/Data transformation)
outputting the formatted response. (Information display - Outputting/Reporting)
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of 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)); and Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)).
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-21 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1 and 15 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include certain methods of organizing human activities and mental processes for similar reasons provided above for claims 1 and 15.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-21 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “computer device”, a “memory”, a “processor”, “data analyzer(s)”, a “server”, a “network”, and a “response repository”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-21 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1-21 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “computer device”, a “memory”, a “processor”, “data analyzer(s)”, a “server”, a “network”, and a “response repository”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-21 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 15 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 15; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-21 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant request for suspension of action under 37 C.F.R. §1.103 (c) for a period of 3 months has been ignored by the Examiner as instructed by Applicant’s Attorney Roy Zachariah (See Examiner Interview Summary Record, 2/26/2026).
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/14/2026, with respect to the 102(a)(1) prior art rejection of Claims 1-21, have been considered but are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ho et al. (US 2023/0199028 A1) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/14/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection of Claims 1-21, have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection will remain as FINAL, based on the rejection above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the revises basis of the 101 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.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection
The Applicant has made the argument with regard to Step 2A, Prong 1:
“ … the claims are not “directed to” an abstract idea when properly construed under broadest reasonable interpretation. The amended independent claims recite a specific computer device/method implementing an ordered workflow driven by a “versioned request” that includes machine-consumable/readable instructions that specify both the response format and the response content.”
However, while the claims recite a "versioned request," the core of the independent claims remain a method for organizing human activity (document verification) and a mental process (checking if data is received and formatting it). Simply stating that instructions are "machine-consumable" does not change their character. The logical structures and processes that merely automate a manual workflow (like a clerk checking a checklist) remain abstract ideas regardless of the "versioned" nomenclature.
The Applicant has made the argument with regard to Step 2A, Prong 2:
“… the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Office Action asserts the claims “fail to integrate” the exception (See Office Action, paragraphs 13–14), listing generic computer elements. The analysis, however, disregards the meaningful limitations here: a) Receiving a “versioned request” that “comprises at least one instruction specifying a format … and content to be included” – the computer is bound to follow those machine-consumable instructions. This amounts to more than field-of-use; it is a particular data structure with operational semantics. b) Conditionally “submitting the data requests that can be submitted” upon determining responses have not been received – this coordinates analyzer interactions in a specific ordered way, not simply “collecting data.” c) “Formatting the response to include the content and according to the format specified by the versioned request” – a direct, rule-bound computation performed by the computer that yields a constrained output, not generic display. Based on at least the foregoing, these claim limitations impose meaningful limits and reflect a specific technological solution to handling heterogeneous verification flows and outputs. The claims therefore integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.”
However, the "versioned request" is not a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g., improving CPU speed or reducing memory). Instead, it is a business solution to handle different verification rules. Furthermore, the coordination of "analyzers" is insignificant extra-solution activity. Finally, under MPEP 2106.04(d), "collecting data" and "formatting output" are generally considered routine computer functions that do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application unless they change the way the computer itself operates.
The Applicant has made the argument with regard to Step 2B (i.e., “Significantly more”):
“… even if it is maintained that the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea, the ordered combination recites significantly more. The Office Action’s Step 2B analysis (See Office Action, paragraphs 15–17) asserts the elements are generic without evidentiary support that the claimed arrangement of “versioned request with format-and-content instructions” and the specific “formatting to include the content and according to the format specified by the versioned request” were well-understood, routine, or conventional at the relevant time. The Office Action cites Applicant’s Specification at paragraph [0034] to say that “computing devices… can be referred to as data analyzers,” but that does not establish that the particular claimed arrangement is well-understood, routine, or conventional. The burden to show well-understood, routine, or conventional is a factual inquiry. Respectfully, the record lacks evidence that the claimed combination was conventional. Based on at least the foregoing, Step 2B is not satisfied, and at minimum the rejection should be withdrawn or supported with appropriate evidence.
However, the combination of receiving, determining, and formatting is "well-understood, routine, and conventional" in the field of software engineering; and furthermore, the Examiner takes official notice that conditional data submission and rule-based formatting are basic programming tenets. The "ordered combination" follows a standard logic flow (if data is missing, wait/send; if all present, format) which provides no "inventive concept" beyond the abstract idea itself.
The Applicant has argued that the claims are allowable over 101, based on the Electric Power Group case and the Alice Corp. opinion.
However, the independent claims (like those in Electric Power Group) are focused on collecting, analyzing, and displaying information. Even with "versioned" constraints, if the claim does not require a specific, unconventional hardware configuration or a new protocol that improves network efficiency, it remains a generic computer implementation of an abstract idea.
The Examiner therefore maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments; especially the following:
Terbu et al. (Terbu, Lodderstedt, Yasuda, Lemmon, and Looker, "OpenID for Verifiable Presentations," openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0-13, Pgs.1-53, September 6, 2022.) – Terbu describes a system that incorporates the following high-level process, a Verifier requesting specific, trusted data (like an ID) from a Holder's Digital Wallet and validating it—using different levels of abstraction (protocol-level specification vs. functional description). The description outlines a Verifier-initiated verification flow where a Verifier (relying party) sends a structured, query-based request to a Wallet, which then produces a standardized container (vp_token) containing the requested, signed identification data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
March 4, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629