DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to the application filed on August 23, 2023.
2. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 have been canceled.
4. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 have been amended.
5. Claim 9 is newly added.
6. Applicant submitted a replacement drawing for Figure 1 on August 12, 2025. The replacement drawing has been accepted.
7. Applicant submitted specification amendments for paragraphs 46, and 55-56 on August 12, 2025. These specification amendments have been accepted.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
8. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
9. Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of Claims 1 and 5, as amended, recites in part “generate a record, wherein the record is data and time stamped”. This appears to be a typographical error and Examiner assumes this should more accurately read “…the record is date and time stamped” as disclosed in paragraph 41 of Applicant’s Specification.
For purposes of examination, Examiner will proceed as if the limitation properly read “date and time stamped”, however appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
10. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the instant claim 1 recites "[a] system for electronically verifying an identity card and managing an electronic notary journal, the system comprising a processor and a memory, the system configured to implement a method comprising:”
The preamble of the instant claim 5 recites "[a] method for electronically verifying an identity card and managing an electronic notary journal, the method implemented within a system comprising a processor and a memory, the method comprising:”
In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “for electronically verifying an identity card and managing an electronic notary journal” as recited in the preamble of Claims 1 and 5 only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
Similarly in the instant case, the following italicized limitations are expressing the intended result of a process step positively recited and are not given weight:
As in Claim 1:
create, a new journal entry, through a first screen of an interface, by receiving details for document to be notarized, the detail of the document comprises nature of the document and fee;
capture, an image of an identity document of the first signer through a third screen, wherein closing the third screen automatically opens fourth screen of the interface;
receive, through the fourth screen, electronically, a signature of the first signer, wherein saving the signature automatically closes the fourth screen and opens the second screen, the second screen shows the added first signer;
adding one or more witnesses through fifth screen of the interface, wherein details of a first witness of the one or more witnesses are received through the fifth screen, an identity document of the first witness is received through the third screen, and a signature of the first witness is electronically received through the fourth screen.
As in Claim 5:
creating a new journal entry, through a first screen of an interface, by receiving details for a document to be notarized, the detail of the document comprises nature of the document and fee;
capturing, an image of an identity document of the first signer through third screen, wherein closing the third screen automatically opens fourth screen of the interface;
receiving, through the fourth screen, electronically, a signature of the first signer, wherein saving the signature automatically closes the fourth screen and opens the second screen, the second screen shows the added first signer;
adding one or more witnesses through fifth screen of the interface, wherein details of a first witness of the one or more witnesses are received through the fifth screen, an identity document of the first witness is received through the third screen, and a signature of the first witness is electronically received through the fourth screen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
11. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed August 12, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
As in Claims 1 and 5:
fetching current GPS location;
As in Claim 9:
saving a copy of the record in a second database, wherein the second database is configured to allow searching the record using a plurality of ways comprising keyword-based search.
Applicant’s Specification discloses the following:
“The disclosed system can also provide for indexing the records, so that any record can be located using a variety of ways in a database, for example, using keywords, date, year, location, and the like. Moreover, the disclosed system can capture additional details that may be useful in a legal proceeding, such as the GPS location of a place where a record is received by the disclosed system. Date and time information from the system can also be stamped with each record. Any modifications can be tracked and maintained as a log.”
This is the only mention of a GPS location in the specification. There is no description of “fetching” a current GPS location. The mechanism of GPS capture is not disclosed and it may be no more than the place where a record is received by the system. This may not be anything more than the GPS location being entered (i.e., captured) into the system. This is recitation is attempting to claim elements not present in the specification.
Applicant’s Specification discloses the following:
“A fourth icon i.e., the account icon in the menu may open a screen 1100 that may display a profile of the user. The registration module may allow the user to modify details presented through the screen 1100 and save the changes. The record can be signed using digital signatures of the notary public and the signed record can be saved. The record can also be encrypted and signed, for authentication and securing the record against tampering. The record can also be saved as a block in a blockchain, and the same can be saved using the blockchain and public ledger technology. It is to be noted that a copy of the record can also be saved separately which allows searching the records using a variety of ways, such as keywords, date, and the like.” (See Applicant Spec para 56)
As to the recitation of Claim 9, there is no second database disclosed in the specification or drawings. Further, while the specification does disclose a copy of the record can be saved separately to allow searching the records, it does so by a variety of ways, such as keywords, date and the like but not by a plurality of ways comprising keyword-based search or via a particular structure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to 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.
12. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a system claim. Claim 5 recites a method claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of verifying an identity card and managing a notary journal. The idea is described by the following limitations:
create a new journal entry, by receiving details for a document to be notarized, the detail of the document comprises nature of the document and fee;
fetch current GPS location;
add, at least one signer, wherein details of a first signer of the at least one signer are received;
capture, an image of an identity document of the first signer;
receive, a signature of the first signer;
verify the identity document and the details of a first signer against an external database;
add one or more witnesses, wherein details of a first witness of the one or more witnesses are received, an identity document of the first witness is received, and a signature of the first witness is received,
verify the details of the first witness and the identity document of the first witness against the external database;
generate a record, wherein the record is date and time stamped;
sign the record; and
store the record.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of verifying an identity card and managing a notary journal. The idea is described by the following limitations:
creating a new journal entry, by receiving details for a document to be notarized, the detail of the document comprises nature of the document and fee;
adding, at least one signer, wherein details of a first signer of the at least one signer are received;
capturing an image of an identity document of the first signer;
receiving a signature of the first signer;
verifying the identity document and details of a first signer against an external database;
add one or more witnesses, wherein details of a first witness of the one or more witnesses are received, an identity document of the first witness is received, and a signature of the first witness is received,
verify the details of the first witness and the identity document of the first witness against the external database;
generate a record, wherein the record is date and time stamped;
sign the record; and
store the record.
The abstract ideas describe mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to the mental processes, the steps describe concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion (i.e., creating a new journal entry, by receiving details for a document to be notarized, the detail of the document comprises nature of the document and fee; adding, at least one signer, wherein details of a first signer of the at least one signer are received; capturing an image of an identity document of the first signer; receiving a signature of the first signer; verifying the identity document and the details of a first signer against an external database, add one or more witnesses, wherein details of a first witness of the one or more witnesses are received, an identity document of the first witness is received, and a signature of the first witness is received, verify the details of the first witness and the identity document of the first witness against the first external database, generate a record that is date and time stamped, sign and store the record) the steps are performing a mental process in a computer environment that recites limitations observing, receiving, evaluating information and with the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., creating a new journal entry, by receiving details for a document to be notarized, the detail of the document comprises nature of the document and fee; adding, at least one signer, wherein details of a first signer of the at least one signer are received; capturing an image of an identity document of the first signer; receiving a signature of the first signer; and verifying the identity document and the details of a first signer against an external database, add one or more witnesses, wherein details of a first witness of the one or more witnesses are received, an identity document of the first witness is received, and a signature of the first witness is received, verify the details of the first witness and the identity document of the first witness against the first external database, generate a record that is date and time stamped, sign and store the record) (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising a processor and a memory; a first screen of an interface; a second screen of an interface; a third screen; a fourth screen and a fifth screen of the interface.
Claim 5 recites a system comprising a processor and a memory; a first screen of an interface; a second screen of an interface; a third screen; a fourth screen and a fifth screen of the interface.
In particular, the claims only recite a system comprising a processor and a memory; a first screen of an interface; a second screen of an interface; a third screen; a fourth screen and a fifth screen of the interface which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting data– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“Referring to Fig. 1 which is a block diagram showing an environment of the disclosed system. The system 100 can connect to a user device 110 through a network 120. The user device can be a smartphone, laptop, desktop, and the like. The user device at least includes a camera to capture a photograph and a network circuitry for connecting to the network. The user device can also include a display for presenting information and an input device for receiving the information. The system can also connect to third-party database server 144 identification verification. Examples of such third-party database servers include government records.” (See Applicant specification paragraph 43)
“The network can be a wired network, a wireless network, or a combination of the wired network and the wireless network. Examples of the network include local area networks, wide area networks, Internet, Wi-Fi, Wi-max, cellular network, and the like. Also, while fig. 1 shows a single-user device connected to the system through a single network, it should be understood that the multiple user devices can connect with the disclosed system through multiple networks simultaneously and at different times. Moreover, a single- user device can connect with the disclosed system through a combination of wired and wireless networks. For example, through a Wi-Fi and optical cable network.” (See Applicant specification paragraph 44)
“The system can be implemented in the form of servers that can be located at one location or geographically dispersed. The servers include cloud servers. The servers can support technologies of blockchain, public ledger, and the like.” (See Applicant specification paragraph 45)
“Referring to Fig. 2 which shows an architecture of the disclosed system 100. The system can include a processor 210 and a memory 220. The processor can be any logic circuitry that responds to, and processes instructions fetched from the memory. The memory may include one or more memory chips capable of storing data and allowing any storage location to be directly accessed by the processor. The system may also include a network circuitry 230 for connecting to the network 130. It is understood that the term processor includes one or more processors, and memory can include more than one memory unit. The memory includes modules according to the present invention for execution by the processor to perform one or more steps of the disclosed methodology. The module can be a program code, software code, algorithm, and the like that can be executed by the processor for performing one or more steps of the disclosed methodology.” (See Applicant specification paragraph 46)
“Fig. 2 shows the memory including an interface module 240 which upon execution by the processor provides an interface on a user device for interacting with the disclosed system. Through the interface, information can be presented on the user device and information can be received from the user device by the system. Figs. 3-12 showed different screens of the interface according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. The novel interface allows one to quickly navigate through different sections to quickly capture all the required information.” (See Applicant specification paragraph 47)
“The memory may also include a registration module 250 that allows for registering a user with the disclosed system. The notary public can use the disclosed system for electronically managing the notary journals and verifying the identification cards. A main module 260 is also shown in Fig. 2 which upon execution by the processor allows capturing information from the parties and witnesses. The system may also include an analysis module 270 that upon execution of the processor allows for the searching of entries and records in a database and help me any legal or administrative compliance.” (See Applicant specification paragraph 48)
“The interface can be provided as application software that can be installed on the user device. The application software can be developed for Android™, iOS, and any other known operating platform for mobile devices. The application software can be made available through a distribution service provider, for example, Google Play™ operated and developed by Google, and the app store by Apple. In addition to the application software, a website-based interface can also be provided through the world-wide-web. The application software can also be provided for the desktop environment. [sic] such as Windows™, Linux, and mac OS. The user interface may permit interaction with the user through the user device, wherein information can be presented with in the user interface by the system 100 and information can be received by system 100 from the user.” (See Applicant specification paragraph 49)
“The screen 710 be used to capture details of a signer. A back arrow can be seen at the top corner that allows reverting to screen 500. The user, through screen 700, can enter the information of the signer including name, address, contact details, and ID provided by the signer. The user can also capture a photograph of the ID using screen 800 shown in Fig. 8. The screen 700 includes third soft button 710 that open screen 804 capturing the ID. Screen 800 has a frame 810 in which an image of ID is captured by a camera of the user device can be displayed. The user can press the catch button 820 to capture the image as shown in frame 810. Once captured, another screen 900 may automatically appear, the screen 900 shown in Fig. 9. Screen 900 has a frame 910 that can digitally capture the signature of the signer. Button 920 can be used to clear the frame in case of any wrong signature. A save button 930 and save the signature and the screen 500 can then be displayed to the user.” (See Applicant specification paragraph 53)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1 and 5 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 3, 7 and 9 further define the abstract ideas that are presented in the respective independent claims 1 and 5 and are further grouped as mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. No further hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claims are further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
13. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleck et al.(US PG. Pub. 2022/0230263) (“Fleck”) in view of Beverly (US PG Pub. 2023/0368319)
Regarding Claim 1, Fleck discloses the following:
A system for electronically verifying an identity card and managing an electronic notary journal, the system comprising a processor, a memory operably coupled to the processor, and a camera operably coupled to the processor, the memory comprises a set of instructions which upon execution by the processor causes the processor to: (See Fleck paras 5, 18, 21, 140-141, Fig. 69, Cls. 1 and 7)
create, a new journal entry, through a first screen of an interface, by receiving details for a document to be notarized, the detail of the document comprises nature of the document and fee; (See Fleck Figs. 5-6, 14, 17, 22, 53, 64-65, 67, paras 6, 12, 14, 18, 21, 26, 101, 103, 106-108, 110, 116-117, 120, 132, 138 – receiving photographs of the document, entering document details including the type of document [nature of the document]; e-journal entry allows for creation of a new journal entry; associated fees with the journal entry; the system includes an e-journal; notary stamped the document to be signed, includes type of document and amount of notary fee, as well as whether the fee was collected; display one or more inputs on the GUI that enables a user to capture an image of the document)
fetch current GPS location; (See Fleck paras 14, 29, 119, 125, Cl. 18)
add, at least one signer, through a second screen of the interface, wherein details of a first signer of the at least one signer are received through the second screen; (See Fleck Figs. 17, 54, paras 12 – adding signer details, block of data about the signer including name, address, phone number)
capture, an image of an identity document of the first signer through a third screen, wherein closing the third screen automatically opens fourth screen of the interface; (See Fleck Figs. 2-3, 33, 35, 54-57, paras 11-13, 18-19, 21, 23, 26-27, 108, 112-113, 117-118, 121, 135, 138 – verify signer’s identity, capture images of identity document of the first signer)
receive, through the fourth screen, electronically, a signature of the first signer, wherein saving the signature automatically closes the fourth screen and opens the second screen, the second screen shows the added first signer; and (See Fleck Figs. 16, 19, 56-58, 60-61, paras 11, 21, 108, 120, 126, 129, 138 – receiving signature of the first signer; receiving signature of signer)
verify the identity document and the details of a first signer against an external database. (See Fleck Figs. 10, 17, 34, 56, paras 12, 20-21, 120, 127, 129, 135 – verify identity document and details of a first signer; confirmation that the authenticity of the signer government-issued identification document (i.e., driver’s license or passport) was verified; in some embodiments, the system is configured to confirm the authenticity of the identification using one or more of proprietary systems and/or third-party conventional systems [verify the identity document against an external database])
add one or more witnesses through a fifth screen of the interface, wherein details of a first witness of the one or more witnesses are received through the fifth screen, an identity document of the first witness is received through the third screen, and a signature of the first witness is electronically received through the fourth screen, (See Fleck Figs. 8, 11-12, 17, 22 paras 120-121, 132 – photographing the party(ies), may include witnesses; verify identity using credible witnesses; one or more inputs for capturing an image of the people involved in the transaction [which would include witnesses], collects identifying information for each party involved)
verify the details of the witness and the identity document of the first witness against the external database; (See Fleck paras 12, 120-121 – confirmation that the authenticity of two witnesses’ government-issued identification documents were verified)
generate a record, wherein the record is date and time stamped; (See Fleck paras 11, 14-15, 107-109, 116 and 125)
digitally sign the record; and (See Fleck paras 11, 14-15, 107-109, 116, 120, 129 and 138)
electronically store the record. (See Flack paras 11, 14-15, 107-109, 116 and 138)
Fleck discloses systems and methods directed to identity and document verification using blockchain technology. (See Fleck Abstract) In some embodiments, the system is able to capture images of identification information as well as documents such as legal documents and titles. (See Fleck Abstract)
Some embodiments include system for recording document transactions comprising one or more of: a blockchain, a camera, a computer network, a graphical user interface (GUI), an identification verification platform, a unique hash code generator, and one or more computers comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions stored thereon that when executed by the one or more processors configured the one or more computers to implement one or more steps. (See Fleck para 18) In some embodiments, the one or more steps include steps to: generate, by the one or more processors, the GUI; implement, by the one or more processors, the identification verification platform; display, on the GUI, one or more inputs for the identification verification platform; generate, by the unique hash code generator a unique hash code configured to identify an identification document on the blockchain; receive, by the one or more processors, an image of the identification document from the camera; associate, by the one or more processors, the unique hash code with the image; and add, by the one or more processors, the image to a string of a plurality of unique hash codes on the blockchain. (See Fleck para 18) In some embodiments, the system is configured to enable a user to view the images on the blockchain by entering the unique hash code into an input on the GUI. (See Fleck para 18)
Some embodiments include a system for recording notary transactions comprising one or more of: a blockchain, a camera, a computer network, a graphical user interface (GUI), an identification verification platform, a document verification, a unique hash code generator, and one or more computers comprising one or more processors and one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions stored thereon that when executed by the one or more processors configured the one or more computers to implement one or more steps. (See Fleck para 21 – GUI interface, camera) In some embodiments, the one or more steps include instructions to: generate, by the one or more processors, the graphical user interface (GUI); implement, by the one or more processors, the identification verification platform; implement, by the one or more processors, the document verification platform; display, on the GUI, one or more inputs for the identification verification platform and/or the document verification platform on the GUI; generate, by the unique hash code generator, a unique hash configured to identify a collection of one or more documents on the blockchain; receive, by the one or more processors, one or more images of the one or more documents from the camera; associate, by the one or more processors, the unique hash code with the one or more images; and add, by the one or more processors, the one or more images to a string of a plurality of unique hash codes on the blockchain. (See Fleck para 21 – GUI interface enabling identification verification inputs and/or document verification; receiving images from the camera)
Fleck further discloses that the application is not limited to example embodiments, but that instead some embodiments are set forth to satisfy the best mode requirement and that each embodiment describes a portion of the whole system and features from some embodiments are readily combinable with features from some other embodiments. (See Fleck paragraph 100 – examples and embodiments of Fleck are readily combinable) Therefore, discussions of features in conjunction with a particular discipline or embodiment do not limit the combination of those features with any other embodiment described in detail herein. (See Fleck paragraphs 100-101 – examples and embodiments of Fleck are readily combinable) The illustrative flowcharts comprise an order of one or more execution steps as well as content displayed on the GUI for one or more steps and in some embodiments, the steps may be executed in a different order, so the order show is not meant to be limiting and are readily incorporated into previous disclosures. (See Fleck para 133 and Figs. 23-52, generally)
While Fleck discloses the invention as claimed, Beverly more clearly details a digital notary journal for receiving a document to be notarized and further discloses receiving credible witness information, which would encompass receiving an identity document and a signature.
Beverly a portable device that serves as a digital notary journal where a notary public can perform various notary acts while meeting all legal requirements set by the local government. (See Beverly para 5) The invention allows for the efficient notarization of documents and notary acts only by the notary public. (See Beverly para 22)
Each function enables the notary acts including, but not limited to, journalizing an event, making copy requests, etc. (See Beverly para 22) According to the function/template selected, the corresponding notary PC device displays appropriate fields where the necessary background information can be entered by the notary public, including, but not limited to, number of individuals signing the notarized document, date and time of the notary act, type of notary act, location of the notary act, type of document being notarized, additional information, notary fee, etc. (See Beverly para 22)
Once all of the background information is entered, the notary account is prompted to input signing user identification (ID) information using the corresponding notary PC device. (See Beverly para 23) The signing user ID information can include information of the ID documentation provided to validate the identity of the person involved in the notary act as well as any involved credible witness information. (See Beverly para 23 – can validate identity of the signer as well as credible witness information)
Once all of the background information is entered, the notary account is prompted to input signing user identification (ID) information using the corresponding notary PC device. (See Beverly para 23) The signing user ID information can include information of the ID documentation provided to validate the identity of the person involved in the notary act as well as any involved credible witness information. (See Beverly para 23 – can validate identity of the signer as well as credible witness information)
For example, the corresponding notary PC device can accept information of a valid driver’s license and record the ID documentation to be stored along with the notarized documents. (See Beverly para 23 and Fig. 5) After the appropriate signing user ID information is recorded, the signing user account is prompted to enter the digital user signature using the corresponding notary PC device where the corresponding notary PC device can output various fields to record a digital signature that corresponds to the user signing the notarized document. (See Beverly para 23)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the systems and methods of identity and document verification using blockchain technology of Fleck with the disclosure of a digital notary journal used by a notary public as taught by Beverly in order to promote safe and efficient recording of notary acts by the notary public according to legal requirements.
Regarding Claim 5, Fleck discloses the following:
A method for electronically verifying an identity card and managing an electronic notary journal, the method implemented within a system comprising a processor, a memory operably coupled to the processor and storing a set of instruction which upon execution by the processor implements the method, and a camera operably coupled to the processor, the method comprising: (See Fleck paras 5, 18, 21, 140-141, Fig. 69, Cls. 1 and 7)
creating a new journal entry, through a first screen of an interface, by receiving details for a document to be notarized, the detail of the document comprises nature of the document and fee; (See Fleck Figs. 5-6, 14, 17, 22, 53, 64-65, 67, paras 6, 12, 14, 18, 21, 26, 101, 103, 106-108, 110, 116-117, 120, 132, 138 – receiving photographs of the document, entering document details including the type of document [nature of the document]; e-journal entry allows for creation of a new journal entry; associated fees with the journal entry; the system includes an e-journal; notary stamped the document to be signed, includes type of document and amount of notary fee, as well as whether the fee was collected; display one or more inputs on the GUI that enables a user to capture an image of the document)
fetching current GPS location; (See Fleck paras 14, 29, 119, 125, Cl. 18)
adding, at least one signer, through a second screen of the interface, wherein details of a first signer of the at least one signer are received through the second screen; (See Fleck Figs. 17, 54, paras 12 – adding signer details, block of data about the signer including name, address, phone number)
capturing, an image of an identity document of the first signer through third screen, wherein closing the third screen automatically opens fourth screen of the interface; (See Fleck Figs. 2-3, 33, 35, 54-57, paras 11-13, 18-19, 21, 23, 26-27, 108, 112-113, 117-118, 121, 135, 138 – verify signer’s identity, capture images of identity document of the first signer)
receiving, through the fourth screen, electronically, a signature of the first signer, wherein saving the signature automatically closes the fourth screen and opens the second screen, the second screen shows the added first signer; (See Fleck Figs. 16, 19, 56-58, 60-61, paras 11, 21, 108, 120, 126, 129, 138 – receiving signature of the first signer; receiving signature of signer)
verifying the identity document and the details of a first signer against an external database. (See Fleck Figs. 10, 17, 34, 56, paras 12, 20-21, 120, 127, 129, 135 – verify identity document and details of a first signer; confirmation that the authenticity of the signer government-issued identification document (i.e., driver’s license or passport) was verified; in some embodiments, the system is configured to confirm the authenticity of the identification using one or more of proprietary systems and/or third-party conventional systems [verify the identity document against an external database])
adding one or more witnesses through a fifth screen of the interface, wherein details of a first witness of the one or more witnesses are received through the fifth screen, an identity document of the first witness is received through the third screen, and a signature of the first witness is electronically received through the fourth screen; (See Fleck Figs. 8, 11-12, 17, 22 paras 120-121, 132 – photographing the party(ies), may include witnesses; verify identity using credible witnesses; one or more inputs for capturing an image of the people involved in the transaction [which would include witnesses], collects identifying information for each party involved)
verifying the details of the first witness and identity document of the first witness against the external database; (See Fleck paras 12, 120-121 – confirmation that the authenticity of two witnesses’ government-issued identification documents were verified)
generating a record, wherein the record is date and time stamped; (See Fleck paras 11, 14-15, 107-109, 116 and 125)
digitally signing the record; and (See Fleck paras 11, 14-15, 107-109, 116, 120, 129 and 138)
electronically storing the record. (See Flack paras 11, 14-15, 107-109, 116 and 138)
Fleck discloses systems and methods directed to identity and document verification using blockchain technology. (See Fleck Abstract) In some embodiments, the system is able to capture images of identification information as well as documents such as legal documents and titles. (See Fleck Abstract)
Some embodiments include system for recording document transactions comprising one or more of: a blockchain, a camera, a computer network, a graphical user interface (GUI), an identification verification platform, a unique hash code generator, and one or more computers comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions stored thereon that when executed by the one or more processors configured the one or more computers to implement one or more steps. (See Fleck para 18) In some embodiments, the one or more steps include steps to: generate, by the one or more processors, the GUI; implement, by the one or more processors, the identification verification platform; display, on the GUI, one or more inputs for the identification verification platform; generate, by the unique hash code generator a unique hash code configured to identify an identification document on the blockchain; receive, by the one or more processors, an image of the identification document from the camera; associate, by the one or more processors, the unique hash code with the image; and add, by the one or more processors, the image to a string of a plurality of unique hash codes on the blockchain. (See Fleck para 18) In some embodiments, the system is configured to enable a user to view the images on the blockchain by entering the unique hash code into an input on the GUI. (See Fleck para 18)
Some embodiments include a system for recording notary transactions comprising one or more of: a blockchain, a camera, a computer network, a graphical user interface (GUI), an identification verification platform, a document verification, a unique hash code generator, and one or more computers comprising one or more processors and one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions stored thereon that when executed by the one or more processors configured the one or more computers to implement one or more steps. (See Fleck para 21 – GUI interface, camera) In some embodiments, the one or more steps include instructions to: generate, by the one or more processors, the graphical user interface (GUI); implement, by the one or more processors, the identification verification platform; implement, by the one or more processors, the document verification platform; display, on the GUI, one or more inputs for the identification verification platform and/or the document verification platform on the GUI; generate, by the unique hash code generator, a unique hash configured to identify a collection of one or more documents on the blockchain; receive, by the one or more processors, one or more images of the one or more documents from the camera; associate, by the one or more processors, the unique hash code with the one or more images; and add, by the one or more processors, the one or more images to a string of a plurality of unique hash codes on the blockchain. (See Fleck para 21 – GUI interface enabling identification verification inputs and/or document verification; receiving images from the camera)
Fleck further discloses that the application is not limited to example embodiments, but that instead some embodiments are set forth to satisfy the best mode requirement and that each embodiment describes a portion of the whole system and features from some embodiments are readily combinable with features from some other embodiments. (See Fleck paragraph 100 – examples and embodiments of Fleck are readily combinable) Therefore, discussions of features in conjunction with a particular discipline or embodiment do not limit the combination of those features with any other embodiment described in detail herein. (See Fleck paragraphs 100-101 – examples and embodiments of Fleck are readily combinable) The illustrative flowcharts comprise an order of one or more execution steps as well as content displayed on the GUI for one or more steps and in some embodiments, the steps may be executed in a different order, so the order show is not meant to be limiting and are readily incorporated into previous disclosures. (See Fleck para 133 and Figs. 23-52, generally)
While Fleck discloses the invention as claimed, Beverly more clearly details a digital notary journal for receiving a document to be notarized and further discloses receiving credible witness information, which would encompass receiving an identity document and a signature.
Beverly a portable device that serves as a digital notary journal where a notary public can perform various notary acts while meeting all legal requirements set by the local government. (See Beverly para 5) The invention allows for the efficient notarization of documents and notary acts only by the notary public. (See Beverly para 22)
Each function enables the notary acts including, but not limited to, journalizing an event, making copy requests, etc. (See Beverly para 22) According to the function/template selected, the corresponding notary PC device displays appropriate fields where the necessary background information can be entered by the notary public, including, but not limited to, number of individuals signing the notarized document, date and time of the notary act, type of notary act, location of the notary act, type of document being notarized, additional information, notary fee, etc. (See Beverly para 22)
Once all of the background information is entered, the notary account is prompted to input signing user identification (ID) information using the corresponding notary PC device. (See Beverly para 23) The signing user ID information can include information of the ID documentation provided to validate the identity of the person involved in the notary act as well as any involved credible witness information. (See Beverly para 23 – can validate identity of the signer as well as credible witness information)
Once all of the background information is entered, the notary account is prompted to input signing user identification (ID) information using the corresponding notary PC device. (See Beverly para 23) The signing user ID information can include information of the ID documentation provided to validate the identity of the person involved in the notary act as well as any involved credible witness information. (See Beverly para 23 – can validate identity of the signer as well as credible witness information)
For example, the corresponding notary PC device can accept information of a valid driver’s license and record the ID documentation to be stored along with the notarized documents. (See Beverly para 23 and Fig. 5) After the appropriate signing user ID information is recorded, the signing user account is prompted to enter the digital user signature using the corresponding notary PC device where the corresponding notary PC device can output various fields to record a digital signature that corresponds to the user signing the notarized document. (See Beverly para 23)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the systems and methods of identity and document verification using blockchain technology of Fleck with the disclosure of a digital notary journal used by a notary public as taught by Beverly in order to promote safe and efficient recording of notary acts by the notary public according to legal requirements.
Regarding Claims 3 and 7, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 5 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Fleck discloses the following:
wherein the added first signer and the first witness are shown on the second screen. (See Fleck Figs. 37, 39, 48, 54-55, 58, 60, 62, 64 – all pages are signed by the parties involved, all parties in the group are photographed; evidence of identity received from each signer; signers appear together on the same screen)
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 5 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above.
saving a copy of the record in a second database, wherein the second database is configured to allow searching the record using a plurality of ways comprising keyword-based search. (See Fleck paras 108, 141, 143 – the captured metadata is stored on the system blockchain and in some embodiments, the metadata is organized and/or stored in a searchable relational database)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2025 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
As to the Drawings:
Applicant is thanked for the replacement drawings and specification amendments submitted. (See Applicant Arguments dated 08/12/2025, page 9) The drawing objections have accordingly been withdrawn.
As to the 101 Rejections:
Examiner has updated the 101 rejection to account for the amendments made.
Applicant traverses the rejection. (Id. at page 10)
As to Step 1, as amended, there is no remaining issue as to the system and method being non-statutory as appropriate systemization has been added to the claims. (Id.)
As to Step 2A, Applicant disagree that the independent claims recite an abstract idea. (Id.) In support of this assertion, Applicant cites to paragraphs 5 and 38 of the specification. Paragraph 5 indicates that the verification of identity cards, recording of the transaction, and maintaining physical records are tedious and time consuming. (Id.) Paragraph 38 notes that the system and method for electronic maintenance of notary journals meeting all legal and administrative compliances where the records can be safely and electronically stored in a trustworthy environment as emphasized by Applicant. (Id. at pages 10-11)
Applicant argues that the claimed invention implements a novel application interface with multiple screens and automated transitions that streamline the notary process. (Id. at page 11) Applicant argues that the dynamic, action based screen transitions are specific interface improvements that facilitate faster, more reliable data capture. (Id.) Further, Applicant asserts that the interface supports capturing photographs via a camera, receiving identity information and documents, obtaining digital signatures and verifying identity cards via external servers and databases as well as asserting that automated identity verification through remote databases is a computer specific operation that cannot be performed in the human mind. (Id.)
Examiner is of another opinion. The use of multiple screens and automated transitions as presented by Applicant is not a technological advancement nor is capturing photographs via a camera, receiving identity information and documents and obtaining digital signatures. The near ubiquitous presence of mobile devices that capture photographs and are utilized in any number of interfaces to capture and request identity information and documents and obtaining digital signatures. As to the argument regarding verifying identity cards via external servers and databases, the argument is not commensurate with the scope of claims presented.
For instance, in Claim 1, the claim recites “verify the identity document and the details of a first signer against an external database”. There are many ways to verify the details against an external database, for instance a call, an IVR system, an email. The claim does not track to a technological improvement nor represent a computer specific operation as claimed.
Applicant then argues that the claims are not directed to commercial or legal interactions in the abstract, but rather is directed to a concrete technological solution for creating, verifying and securely storing electronic records. (Id.) Examiner disagrees. The claims are reflecting a process that but for the invocation of generic systemization still represents an abstract idea(s). The claims are abstract.
As to Step 2B, Applicant argues that the claims further include the additional elements of a processor, memory and camera. (Id.) Additionally, Applicant argues that the system can connect to external servers and databases for verifying identity cards and can capture information through a camera which can be verified. (Id.) Applicant further argues that the system can fetch current GPS location and has an application interface with multiple screens that can automatically switch based on actional [sic] making the process easy and quick and eliminates manual journal handling and reducing transaction time. (Id. at pages 11-12)
The current claims present an invention that is using a computer for its intended purpose, to flexibly follow the instructions it is given. This is automating a manual procedure using computers. The presentation of different screens reflects the process steps ordinarily taken in the notarization process.
As to Step 2B, Applicant argues that the claims are significantly more alleging GPS tagging, secure digital record storage, integrated camera capture and external server verification improves the functioning of the computer in the context of the notary services and are thus subject matter patent eligible. (Id. at page 12) Examiner is of another opinion. First, the claims do not reflect the scope of the alleged improvements Applicant argues for. Secondly, the process does not reflect an improvement of the functioning of a computer. These arguments are not persuasive and the 101 rejection is maintained.
As to the 103 Rejections:
The prior art has been applied as necessary by the additional amendments to the claims, as seen in the rejection in chief.
Applicant traverses the rejection of Claim 1. (Id. at page 13) In support of their traversal, Applicant argues that the claim is not directed to merely receiving information for notary process but a novel application interface that includes multiple screens which are manual and dynamically switched making the process faster and easy for the notary. (Id.)
Applicant then alleges that the prior art does not teach the limitations “capture, an image of an identity document of the first signer through a third screen, wherein closing the third screen automatically opens a fourth screen of the interface”, receive, through the fourth screen, electronically, a signature of the first signer, wherein saving the signature automatically closes the fourth screen and opens the second screen, the second screen shows the added first signer” and “verify the identity document and the details of a first signer against an external database.”
Further, Applicant notes that determining obviousness expressly requires considered the claimed invention as a whole. (Id.) Applicant further requests that Examiner reconsider the rejection. (Id. at page 14) Applicant repeats the same arguments as presented with respect to Claim 1 to the substantially similar Claim 5. (Id. at pages 14-15) Applicant then traverses the rejections of Claims 2-4 and 6-8. (Id. at pages 14-16)
As to the traversals of the dependent claims, the traversal is incomplete as there is no argument presented alleging any particular error by Examiner. As to the traversal of Claims 1 and 5, Applicant makes an allegation that the prior art does not disclose the above mentioned “capturing…” and “receiving…” limitations without any further detail. As noted above, the 103 rejection has been updated to account for Applicant’s amendments, as seen in the rejection in chief.
As to the substance of Applicant’s assertion, Examiner notes that a combination of Fleck and Beverly was used to reject the claims. As noted in the rejection in chief, Fleck directly discloses that the identification verification platform is configured to receive one or more document images of one or more identification documents and in some embodiments configured to generate via a GUI options for uploading one or more identification documents. (See Fleck paras 23, 26-27) Fleck further discloses a system GUI for capturing and/or uploading one or more identification documents and discloses the GUI screens utilized to capture the information. (See Fleck paras 112-113, 135, Figs. 2-3) A system GUI for capturing an image of a signing party and to generate a display to manually collect identifying information of the signing party. (See Fleck para 121) Fleck further discloses the steps for the signature entry that includes the associated identification document being captured and verification of identification document that discloses adding a signature after capturing/uploading the identity document. (See Fleck para 138)
Beverly further disclosed that credible witness information, in addition to signing user identification, could also be validated using identity documentation. In combination, the prior art discloses the limitations and the prior art rejection is maintained.
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 AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 January 15, 2026