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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claim 17 has rendered a previous objection as moot; therefore, the previous objection to claim 17 is withdrawn.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office 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, 3 – 4, 8 – 12, 14 – 15, 17 and 19 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step One of analysis, the claims recite a device and a method; therefore, the claims recite appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims, as a whole, set forth a common legal interaction such as notarizing a document. To add legal weight to a property document, an impartial official must verify signers identities and witness them signing. This method of properly executing the document describes a legal interaction among the users and notaries and is considered a certain methods of organizing human activity, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 17, which is illustrative of claims 1 and 15, contains the elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method of retrieving and displaying documents by an automated device, the method comprising the steps of:
providing an identification device comprising a display screen for displaying property documents, a biometric fingerprint scratchproof optical scanner for scanning a fingerprint of a user, and an internal memory for storing an image of a scanned fingerprint of a user;
storing said property documents in digital format in said internal memory;
retrieving from said internal memory and displaying said property documents on said display screen for which a user is authorized;
authenticating and saving a scanned fingerprint of the user by comparing a stored fingerprint in said identification device with said scanned fingerprint using an attest document function of the identification device after performing a background verification of the user using the scanned fingerprint;
printing said property documents on a notary document printer by the user upon successful said authenticating of the user; and
transferring said scanned fingerprint onto said property documents, wherein said biometric fingerprint scanner detects said scanned fingerprint of the user when the user touches said biometric fingerprint scanner.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 15, and 17, recite the following additional elements:
A real estate transaction identification device comprising: an identification device comprising a display touch screen display for displaying property documents, a scratchproof optical scanner for scanning a fingerprint of a user, and an internal memory for storing an image of a scanned fingerprint of a user;
wherein said internal memory for storing said property documents in digital format;
an interface to said identification device including a touch interface;
wherein said scratchproof optical scanner is a biometric fingerprint scanner;
a document printer;
a webcam.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0028 - 0031] and Figures 1 and 6, as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (A real estate transaction identification device comprising: an identification device comprising a display touch screen display for displaying property documents, a scratchproof optical scanner for scanning a fingerprint of a user, and an internal memory for storing an image of a scanned fingerprint of a user; wherein said internal memory for storing said property documents in digital format; an interface to said identification device including a touch interface; wherein said scratchproof optical scanner is a biometric fingerprint scanner; a document printer; a webcam), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3 – 4, 8 – 12, 14, and 20, contain refinements to the computer used to perform the abstract idea found in claims 1, 15, and 17. These recitations further employ the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity and are descriptive language defining this machinery. This does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). A kiosk itself being a structure (machine), therefore, it also does not provide for integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 19, contains further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 17. References to an unsuccessful authentication, are further recitations to the method steps aimed to verify the signer identity. Thus, they are directed to the legal interaction. Furthermore, this claim includes recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to apply the abstract idea on a computer. This does not render the claim as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1, 3 – 4, 8 – 12, 14 – 15, 17 and 19 – 20, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without 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.
Claims 1, and 3 – 4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Luna (US 2016/0314291), in view of Ginter (2007/0271463), further in view of Carmenzind (US 2016/0132807).
Regarding claim 1, de Luna discloses an identification device comprising a display touch screen display for displaying property documents, a scratchproof optical scanner for scanning a fingerprint of a user, and an internal memory for storing an image of a scanned fingerprint of a user; (first, see [0002] detailing an office infrastructure virtualization device; comprising: an electronic flat panel display, preferably resistive or capacitive touch screens, [0083]; a typical capacitive fingerprint scanner, [0050], formed of a durable scratch resistant material; and, internal memory for storing fingerprint images, see [0043-0044] discussing scanning fingerprints and stored fingerprint data);
wherein said property documents for which a user is authorized is retrieved from said internal memory and displayed on said touch screen display; (see [0083] further describing the touch screens as electronic flat panel displays);
an interface to said identification device including a touch interface; (at [0087] and I/O interface is discussed, and [0083] further details the touch screen for user data input);
wherein said scratchproof optical scanner is a biometric fingerprint scanner for authenticating and saving a scanned fingerprint of the user; (see [0048] disclosing a biometric activation button comprises a capacitive fingerprint scanner);
and wherein the real estate transaction identification device is configured to authenticate the scanned fingerprint by comparing a stored fingerprint in said identification device with the scanned fingerprint: (see [0067] detailing comparison with previously registered biometric data, as well as Abstract defining capturing biometric data for authentication).
Not disclosed by de Luna is wherein said internal memory for storing said property documents in digital format.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches digital storage at [0376].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a digital format, per the method of Ginter, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because many documents (printed or imaged) can be marked digitally. Ginter utilizes a known method to obtain the expected result of safe storage and transmission of these many types of documents. Thus, suggesting a known and trusted method of working with the documents the instant application suggests. See Ginter’s discussion of working with these documents at Abstract.
Not disclosed by de Luna is a document printer integrated with said identification device for printing said property documents by the user upon successful said authenticating of the user.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches a kiosk that includes a document printer, see [0373].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a printer, per the method of Ginter, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because many documents need to printed. Ginter utilizes a ubiquitous and known method to obtain the expected result of printed copies.
Not disclosed by de Luna is wherein the document printer is a notary printer for authenticating said property documents.
However, Carmenzind discloses a method for managing documents requiring a notarized signature and teaches printing of notarized documents, see [0078-0080].
Key to this claim is the interpretation a notary printer as defined within the instant application. The Specification details “a printer for printing property deeds”, [0012]; and, “a notary document printer 112 is integrated into the device 100. The printer 112 is designed to print in an appropriate format required by the authorities…”. Therefore, because the claim merely describes a generic, ordinary printer, germane to this element is that an authenticated document meets format requirements. Carmenzind addresses these issues when discussing printing on proper paper sizes, at [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to print according to format requirements, per the method of Carmenzind, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this teaches to the same disclosure as discussed within the instant application; certain jurisdictions have their unique requirements for how documents are to appear. Carmenzind teaches that paper size is one that notaries need to be cognizant of, at [0078].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, and Carmenzind, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed by de Luna is a webcam positioned on said identification device for recording video of the user using said identification device.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches a video camera, at [0270]; see also [0317] suggesting parties verifying identities using the video cameras and screens “built into the kiosk.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a webcam, per the method of Ginter, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because a webcam is known and effective mode in order for notary sessions to be on video and perhaps, recorded. his provides the intended result of being able.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, and Carmenzind, discloses all the limitations of claim 3, above.
Not disclosed by de Luna is wherein said identification device is a kiosk.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches, at [0268], a kiosk and offering several illustrations of utilization of this kiosk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a kiosk, per the method of Ginter, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because a kiosk is one of many simple methods that can provide a structure to house the components discussed and provide the services claimed. See Ginter [0268].
Claims 8, 15, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Luna, in view of Ginter, in view of Carmenzind, further in view of Bell (2022/0083635).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, and Carmenzind, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed by de Luna is wherein said biometric fingerprint scanner detects said scanned fingerprint of the user when the user touches said biometric fingerprint scanner.
However, Bell discloses biometric security methods and suggests; “a fingerprint scanner that reads fingerprint data in response to a user interacting with the fingerprint scanner (e.g., by running the user's finger over the surface of the apparatus 300).” See [0145].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to suggest touching the scanner per the method of Bell, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this is a requirement that a touch on the scanner is needed to have the predictable outcome of scanning a fingerprint. The actual touching of the scanner merely one variation of how the scanner works.
Regarding claim 15, de Luna discloses an identification device comprising a display screen display for displaying property documents, a scratchproof optical scanner for scanning a fingerprint of a user, and an internal memory for storing an image of a scanned fingerprint of a user; (first, see [0002] detailing an office infrastructure virtualization device; comprising: an electronic flat panel display, preferably resistive or capacitive touch screens, [0083]; a typical capacitive fingerprint scanner, [0050], formed of a durable scratch resistant material; and, internal memory for storing fingerprint images, see [0043-0044] discussing scanning fingerprints and stored fingerprint data);
wherein said property documents for which a user is authorized is retrieved from said internal memory and displayed on said touch screen display; (see [0083] further describing the touch screens as electronic flat panel displays);
an interface to said identification device including a touch interface; (at [0087] and I/O interface is discussed, and [0083] further details the touch screen for user data input);
wherein said scratchproof optical scanner is a biometric fingerprint scanner for authenticating and saving a scanned fingerprint of the user; (see [0048] disclosing a biometric activation button comprises a capacitive fingerprint scanner);
and wherein the real estate transaction identification device is configured to authenticate the scanned fingerprint by comparing a stored fingerprint in said identification device with the scanned fingerprint: (see [0067] detailing comparison with previously registered biometric data, as well as Abstract defining capturing biometric data for authentication).
Not disclosed by de Luna is a webcam.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches a video camera, at [0270]; see also [0317] suggesting parties verifying identities using the video cameras and screens “built into the kiosk.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a webcam, per the method of Ginter, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because a webcam is known and effective mode in order for notary sessions to be on video and perhaps, recorded. his provides the intended result of being able.
Not disclosed by de Luna is wherein said internal memory for storing said property documents in digital format.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches digital storage at [0376].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a digital format, per the method of Ginter, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because many documents (printed or imaged) can be marked digitally. Ginter utilizes a known method to obtain the expected result of safe storage and transmission of these many types of documents. Thus, suggesting a known and trusted method of working with the documents the instant application suggests. See Ginter’s discussion of working with these documents at Abstract.
Not disclosed by de Luna is a notary document printer integrated with said identification device for authenticating and printing said property documents by the user upon successful said authenticating of the user.
However, Carmenzind discloses a method for managing documents requiring a notarized signature and teaches printing of notarized documents, see [0078-0080].
Key to this claim is the interpretation a notary printer as defined within the instant application. The Specification details “a printer for printing property deeds”, [0012]; and, “a notary document printer 112 is integrated into the device 100. The printer 112 is designed to print in an appropriate format required by the authorities…”. Therefore, because the claim merely describes a generic, ordinary printer, germane to this element is that an authenticated document meets format requirements. Carmenzind addresses these issues when discussing printing on proper paper sizes, at [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to print according to format requirements, per the method of Carmenzind, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this teaches to the same disclosure as discussed within the instant application; certain jurisdictions have their unique requirements for how documents are to appear. Carmenzind teaches that paper size is one that notaries need to be cognizant of, at [0078].
Not disclosed by de Luna is wherein said document printer transfers said authenticated scanned fingerprint onto said property documents.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches an appliance (device) used to accomplish a real estate transaction, (thus, implicitly involving property documents); next, [Abstract] suggests transferring an image to a document when suggesting “[p]rinted or imaged documents can be marked using handwritten signature images, seal images, electronic fingerprinting, watermarking, and/or steganography.” Further, Ginter teaches the system “can use visible electronic fingerprinting or watermarking techniques to provide visible indications of such information (see FIG. 105C).” See also Figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transfer a scanned image (fingerprint) onto a document, per the method of Ginter, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this is a known and widely used technological method to electronically sign and/or watermark documents and is considered effective and legal.
Not disclosed by de Luna is wherein said biometric fingerprint scanner detects said scanned fingerprint of the user when the user touches said biometric fingerprint scanner.
However, Bell discloses biometric security methods and suggests; “a fingerprint scanner that reads fingerprint data in response to a user interacting with the fingerprint scanner (e.g., by running the user's finger over the surface of the apparatus 300).” See [0145].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to suggest touching the scanner per the method of Bell, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this is a requirement that a touch on the scanner is needed to have the predictable outcome of scanning a fingerprint. The actual touching of the scanner merely one variation of how the scanner works.
Regarding claim 17, de Luna discloses providing an identification device comprising a display screen display for displaying property documents, a biometric fingerprint scratchproof optical scanner for scanning a fingerprint of a user, and an internal memory for storing an image of a scanned fingerprint of a user; (first, see [0002] detailing an office infrastructure virtualization device; comprising: an electronic flat panel display, preferably resistive or capacitive touch screens, [0083]; a typical capacitive fingerprint scanner, [0050], formed of a durable scratch resistant material; and, internal memory for storing fingerprint images, see [0043-0044] discussing scanning fingerprints and stored fingerprint data);
retrieving from said internal memory and displaying said property documents on said display screen for which a suer is authorized; (see [0083] further describing the touch screens as electronic flat panel displays);
authenticating and saving a scanned fingerprint of the user by comparing a stored fingerprint in said identification device with said scanned fingerprint; (see [0067] detailing comparison with previously registered biometric data, as well as Abstract defining capturing biometric data for authentication. .
Not disclosed by de Luna is storing said property documents in digital format in said internal memory.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches digital storage at [0376].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a digital format, per the method of Ginter, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because many documents (printed or imaged) can be marked digitally. Ginter utilizes a known method to obtain the expected result of safe storage and transmission of these many types of documents. Thus, suggesting a known and trusted method of working with the documents the instant application suggests. See Ginter’s discussion of working with these documents at Abstract.
Not disclosed by de Luna is a notary document printer integrated with said identification device for authenticating and printing said property documents by the user upon successful said authenticating of the user.
However, Carmenzind discloses a method for managing documents requiring a notarized signature and teaches printing of notarized documents, see [0078-0080].
Key to this claim is the interpretation a notary printer as defined within the instant application. The Specification details “a printer for printing property deeds”, [0012]; and, “a notary document printer 112 is integrated into the device 100. The printer 112 is designed to print in an appropriate format required by the authorities…”. Therefore, because the claim merely describes a generic, ordinary printer, germane to this element is that an authenticated document meets format requirements. Carmenzind addresses these issues when discussing printing on proper paper sizes, at [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to print according to format requirements, per the method of Carmenzind, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this teaches to the same disclosure as discussed within the instant application; certain jurisdictions have their unique requirements for how documents are to appear. Carmenzind teaches that paper size is one that notaries need to be cognizant of, at [0078].
Not disclosed by de Luna is using an attest document function of the identification device after performing a background verification of the user using the scanned fingerprint.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches an appliance (device) used to accomplish a real estate transaction, (thus, implicitly involving property documents); next, [Abstract] suggests transferring an image to a document when suggesting “[p]rinted or imaged documents can be marked using handwritten signature images, seal images, electronic fingerprinting, watermarking, and/or steganography.” Further, Ginter teaches the system “can use visible electronic fingerprinting or watermarking techniques to provide visible indications of such information (see FIG. 105C).” See also Figure 4. Since the attest function as defined within the instant application involved the user transferring the scanned fingerprint upon a document (in lieu of a signature), Ginter’s method is deemed to teach this element.
Not disclosed by de Luna is wherein said biometric fingerprint scanner detects said scanned fingerprint of the user when the user touches said biometric fingerprint scanner.
However, Bell discloses biometric security methods and suggests; “a fingerprint scanner that reads fingerprint data in response to a user interacting with the fingerprint scanner (e.g., by running the user's finger over the surface of the apparatus 300).” See [0145].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to suggest touching the scanner per the method of Bell, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this is a requirement that a touch on the scanner is needed to have the predictable outcome of scanning a fingerprint. The actual touching of the scanner merely one variation of how the scanner works.
Claims 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Luna, in view of Ginter, in view of Carmenzind, in view of Bell, further in view of Siddiqui (2021/0232801).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, Carmenzind, and Bell, discloses all the limitations of claim 8, above.
Not disclosed is wherein said biometric fingerprint scanner detects said scanned fingerprint of the user when the user's finger is within a proximity of said biometric fingerprint scanner.
However, Siddiqui discloses methods utilizing fingerprint scanners and teaches sensors that can determine whether a user’s finger is on (on near) the finger print scanner. See [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a finger near the scanner per the method of Siddiqui, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this is one variation of scanner operation. Using a near setting (proximity) results in the expected outcome of a successful scan.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, Carmenzind, Bell, and Siddiqui discloses all the limitations of claim 9, above.
Further disclosed by de Luna is wherein said internal memory having a random-access memory and a non-volatile memory; (see 0087] detailing the operating system (0/S) 152 is encoded in the devices system memory 152 (e.g., non-volatile NAND flash memory).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, Carmenzind, Bell, and Siddiqui discloses all the limitations of claim 10, above.
Further disclosed by de Luna is wherein said internal memory having a storage device selected from a group consisting of a magnetic disk storage device, an optical storage device, and a flash memory; (see 0087] detailing the operating system (0/S) 152 is encoded in the devices system memory 152 (e.g., non-volatile NAND flash memory).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, Carmenzind, Bell, and Siddiqui discloses all the limitations of claim 11, above.
Further disclosed by de Luna is wherein said internal memory having an operating system selected from a group consisting of a LINUX, a UNIX, an OS X, and a WINDOWS; (see 0096] detailing the user-executable code is programmed in any language and compiled in any format that is compatible with at least one of the major classes of host personal computer operating systems, i.e., Microsoft Windows, Apple MAC OS, and Linux systems).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Luna, in view of Ginter, in view of Carmenzind, further in view of Russo (US 2013/0272586).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, and Carmenzind, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed by de Luna is wherein said touch screen is a screen selected from a group consisting of an LED, an LCD, and an OLED.
However, Russo discloses a method for enrolling biometric data and teaches that many LCD displays are manufactured to include touch screen functionality. See [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an LCD touch screen, per the method of Russo, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this is one variation of touch screen technology, well-known to provide the intended result of a display, as Russo discusses.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Luna, in view of Ginter, in view of Carmenzind, in view of Bell, further in view of Kadam (US 2022/0215081).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, Carmenzind, and Bell, discloses all the limitations of claim 17, above.
Not disclosed is a step of preventing access of said identification device said property documents upon unsuccessful said authenticating said scanned fingerprint.
However, Kadam discloses a method of authentication that teaches unsuccessful authentication attempts results in the system and method being inaccessible. See [0123].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to preventing access for unsuccessful authentications per the method of Kadam, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this is an obvious option to provide when an attempt to authenticate is unsuccessful. Kadam teaches to de Luna’s method that secure data transfer first needs valid authentication. Kadam’s method results in the same outcome as anticipated by the instant application.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of de Luna, Ginter, Carmenzind, Bell, and Kadam, discloses all the limitations of claim 19, above.
Not disclosed is a step of recording video of the user using said identification device.
However, Ginter discloses a method for secure delivery of digital information and teaches a video camera, see [0270] see also [0317] suggesting parties verifying identities using the video cameras).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to record the users, per the method of Ginter, within de Luna’s biometric work platform, because this is a known method to obtain the expected result of safe transacting as well as documenting the process. Thus, suggesting a known and trusted method of working with the documents the instant application suggests.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 6. Applicant argues that the amended are more than just mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and remarks that independent claims 1, 15, and 17, are allowable at Step 2A. See page 9. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception.
At Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The amended claims describe the process to notarize a document; namely, an impartial official must verify signers identities and witness them signing. The amended claims set forth this process when reciting: retrieving and displaying said property documents for which a user is authorized; authenticating and saving a scanned fingerprint of the user by comparing a stored fingerprint with said scanned fingerprint using an attest document after performing a background verification of the user using the scanned fingerprint; printing said property documents by the user upon successful said authenticating of the user. Thus, Applicant is clearly describing the main requirements of a notarization process – verifying (authenticating) the users, and the claims are appropriately categorized as a legal interaction, or a certain method of organizing human activity.
Analysis at Prong Two requires the use of the considerations identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). As noted above, the additional elements in the claims recite: a real estate transaction identification device comprising: an identification device comprising a display touch screen display [for displaying property documents], a scratchproof optical scanner [for scanning a fingerprint of a user], and an internal memory [for storing an image of a scanned fingerprint of a user]; wherein said internal memory [for storing said property documents in digital format]; an interface to said identification device including a touch interface; wherein said scratchproof optical scanner is a biometric fingerprint scanner; a document printer; a webcam. These computing elements are broadly and generically described within the disclosure, see Specification [0028 - 0031] and Figures 1 and 6. The Examiner maintains these elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, and do not show integration into a practical application, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next discusses rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See pages 9 – 15. In view of cancellations to certain claims and amendments to other current claims, a new rejection for all pending claims is contained within this office action. Applicant’s arguments are moot.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629