Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on April 20, 2026. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claim 1 is amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 6-7 and 11-20 have been canceled, with claim 9 remaining canceled. Claim 1 is the independent claim, the remaining claims depend on claim 1. Thus claims 1-5, 8, and 10 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea and patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101; under Step 2A, Prong One, the pending claims do not merely recite an abstract idea, but rather recite a specific, computer-implemented method for fraud verification across user identification formats; the claim’s additional limitations further confirm that it is not directed to an abstract idea at a high level of generality; the cited recitations define a specific data-processing architecture and an ordered sequence of operations, not a mental process or a mere result-oriented business practice; under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim as a whole integrates any such concept into a practical application; the claim does not merely identify fraud or validate identity in the abstract; it recites a particular technical implementation in which a branch-office scanning device generates a digital image, the image is routed through a server and cloud platform using distinct APIs, validation is performed through a SaaS system connected to a relational database, and the result is presented through an ID validation portal and communicated by electronic message to the user's email; this claimed sequence integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical, real-world application; the claim further recites a technical improvement through adaptive AI/ML processing; these limitations recite a concrete feedback loop that improves the operation of the fraud-verification system itself; the claim is also directed to a specific technical solution to a technical problem, namely, verifying identity documents across differing user identification formats while reducing fraud risk and enabling adaptive model retraining; the claim’s recitation of customer activity pattern data … demonstrates that the AI/ML model is trained on specific operational features to improve future verification decisions; that is a practical application of the alleged abstract idea, not merely an invocation of generic computer components; under Step 2B, the claims nevertheless include significantly more than the alleged exception; the claim recites more than routine data gathering or generic computer implementation; it requires a defined interplay among a scanning device, email server, cloud computing platform, SaaS validation system, relational database, ID validation portal, ID validation API, and AI/ML model, each performing a specific role in the claimed workflow; the combination of these elements, particularly the use of different APIs for different operations and the feedback-based retraining loop, is not a mere conventional use of generic computer functions; the claim also recites additional meaningful limitations that amount to more than simply applying the abstract idea on a computer; these limitations provide an inventive concept in the ordered combination and operation of the recited elements, particularly because they form a closed-loop verification and retraining system that improves future fraud detection performance; and when properly considered as a whole and in light of the claim language, the pending claims are not directed to a judicial exception, or at minimum recite additional elements that integrate any alleged exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the exception itself”.
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20250156873 A1, para 1), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘873 A1, para 1), discloses that the invention relates to agnostic improved identification verification for fraud verification across user identification formats, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “establishing a communication link among a scanning device operated by a user at a local branch office, a server configured as an electronic mail server, a cloud computing platform hosted on a public cloud, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Machine Learning (ML) model, and a Software as a Service (SaaS) operatively associated with an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programing interface (API) via a communication network; scanning, by the scanning device, an identification document presented by a customer at the local branch office; generating, in response to scanning, a digital image of the identification document by the scanning device; transmitting, by the scanning device, the digital image from the scanning device to the server; reading, by the cloud computing platform via a first API, the digital image from the server and requesting, via a second API different from the first API, validation of the digital image by the cloud computing platform and performing fraud verification across user identification formats; transmitting, via the second API, the digital image from the cloud computing platform to the SaaS and to the ID validation API; receiving by the cloud computing platform, via the second API, an ID validation response from the SaaS based on existing customer data stored in a relational database operatively connected to the SaaS; storing the ID validation response in the relational database and providing the ID validation response for display through the ID validation portal accessible by one or more user computing devices; generating by the cloud computing platform, utilizing the AI/ML model via the first API, a confidence score based on the ID validation response, rules and historical data stored in an AI/ML model datastore; determining whether the confidence score is equal to or more than a threshold value; and in response to determining the confidence score: i) when the confidence score is less than the threshold value, receiving one or more additional verification documents from the customer and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents; and ii) when determining that the confidence score is equal to or greater than the threshold value, validating the digital image received via the ID validation response and transmitting a validation result and confidence score through an electronic message to user's email associated with the user computing device; updating the relational database with the validation result and confidence score; and training the AI/ML model based on the historical data received from a plurality of data sources providing data corresponding to customer activity pattern data, wherein the customer activity pattern data includes one or more of the following: data corresponding to whether the customer conducts transactions at the same branch where the scanning device is located or different branches; data corresponding to frequency of branch visits by the customer; type of transactions previously conducted by the customer”, which represent the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “one or more processors along with allocated memory”, “establishing a communication link among a scanning device operated by a user at a local branch office, a server configured as an electronic mail server, a cloud computing platform hosted on a public cloud, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Machine Learning (ML) model, and a Software as a Service (SaaS) operatively associated with an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programing interface (API) via a communication network”, “a digital image”, “transmitting, by the scanning device, the digital image from the scanning device to the server”, “reading, by the cloud computing platform via a first API, the digital image from the server”, “a second API different from the first API”, “transmitting, via the second API, the digital image from the cloud computing platform to the SaaS and to the ID validation API”, “a relational database operatively connected to the SaaS”, “display through the ID validation portal accessible by one or more user computing devices”, “utilizing the AI/ML model via the first API”, “an AI/ML model datastore”, “training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”, “an electronic message to user's email associated with the user computing device”, and “training the AI/ML model based on the historical data received from a plurality of data sources providing data corresponding to customer activity pattern data, wherein the customer activity pattern data includes one or more of the following: …”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, an “identification verification protocol”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol.” The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for an “identification verification protocol.” For potential improvement in an abstract idea, an “identification verification protocol”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. an identification verification protocol concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, for paragraph 20 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Applicant has amended so that claim 1 now recites “establishing a communication link …, and a Software as a Service (SaaS) operatively associate with an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming interface (API) …”, which finds support in the specification, (PG Pub US 20250156873 A1, para 92), which recites “… The cloud computing platform 507 may be configured to host a plurality of downstream applications 510, a relational database 512 that may be operatively connected to an ID validation portal 526, an AI/ML model datastore 516, and an AI/ML model 523 …”. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 20 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, for paragraph 21 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, moot. Applicant has amended so that claim 1 now recites “i) when the confidence score is less than the threshold value, receiving one or more additional documents from the customer and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”, which finds support in the specification, (PG Pub US 20250156873 A1, para 103), which recites “… the determining module 426 may be further configured to determine that the confidence score is less than the configurable threshold value. The receiving module 422 may be further configured to receive additional verification documents from the customer. The training muddle 430 may be configured to train the AI/ML model 423, 523 with the additional verifi-cation documents to generate the confidence score”.
The specification, (‘873 A1, para 123), which recites “… the process 600 may further include: determining that the confidence score is less than the configurable threshold value; receiving additional verification documents from the customer; and training the AI/ML model with the additional verification documents to generate the confidence score”, also provides support. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), New Matter, paragraph 21 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 23 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026, Applicant has canceled claim 11 to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 23 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 24 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026, Applicant has canceled claim 20 to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, moot. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Unclear Scope, paragraph 24 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, after further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious:
“reading, by the cloud computing platform via a first API, the digital image from the server and requesting, via a second API different from the first API, validation of the digital image by the cloud computing platform and performing fraud verification across user identification formats”
“receiving by the cloud computing platform, via the second API, an ID validation response from the SaaS based on existing customer data stored in a relational database operatively connected to the SaaS”
“i) when the confidence score is less than the threshold value, receiving one or more additional verification documents from the customer and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being rescinded is maintained.
Claim Interpretation - Optional Language
Claim 1, recites the limitation: “when the confidence score is less than the threshold value, receiving one or more additional verification documents from the customer and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”. The limitation “receiving one or more additional verification documents from the customer and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents” does not necessarily occur in the case “the confidence scores is determined to be equal to or more than the threshold value.” (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II).
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 1-5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-5, 8, and 10 are directed to a “method”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites an “identification verification protocol”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions and a form of fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “establishing a communication link among a scanning device operated by a user at a local branch office, a server configured as an electronic mail server, a cloud computing platform hosted on a public cloud, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Machine Learning (ML) model, and a Software as a Service (SaaS) operatively associated with an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programing interface (API) via a communication network; scanning, by the scanning device, an identification document presented by a customer at the local branch office; generating, in response to scanning, a digital image of the identification document by the scanning device; transmitting, by the scanning device, the digital image from the scanning device to the server; reading, by the cloud computing platform via a first API, the digital image from the server and requesting, via a second API different from the first API, validation of the digital image by the cloud computing platform and performing fraud verification across user identification formats; transmitting, via the second API, the digital image from the cloud computing platform to the SaaS and to the ID validation API; receiving by the cloud computing platform, via the second API, an ID validation response from the SaaS based on existing customer data stored in a relational database operatively connected to the SaaS; storing the ID validation response in the relational database and providing the ID validation response for display through the ID validation portal accessible by one or more user computing devices; generating by the cloud computing platform, utilizing the AI/ML model via the first API, a confidence score based on the ID validation response, rules and historical data stored in an AI/ML model datastore; determining whether the confidence score is equal to or more than a threshold value; and in response to determining the confidence score: i) when the confidence score is less than the threshold value, receiving one or more additional verification documents from the customer and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents; and ii) when determining that the confidence score is equal to or greater than the threshold value, validating the digital image received via the ID validation response and transmitting a validation result and confidence score through an electronic message to user's email associated with the user computing device; updating the relational database with the validation result and confidence score; and training the AI/ML model based on the historical data received from a plurality of data sources providing data corresponding to customer activity pattern data, wherein the customer activity pattern data includes one or more of the following: data corresponding to whether the customer conducts transactions at the same branch where the scanning device is located or different branches; data corresponding to frequency of branch visits by the customer; type of transactions previously conducted by the customer”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “one or more processors along with allocated memory”, “establishing a communication link among a scanning device operated by a user at a local branch office, a server configured as an electronic mail server, a cloud computing platform hosted on a public cloud, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Machine Learning (ML) model, and a Software as a Service (SaaS) operatively associated with an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programing interface (API) via a communication network”, “a digital image”, “transmitting, by the scanning device, the digital image from the scanning device to the server”, “reading, by the cloud computing platform via a first API, the digital image from the server”, “a second API different from the first API”, “transmitting, via the second API, the digital image from the cloud computing platform to the SaaS and to the ID validation API”, “a relational database operatively connected to the SaaS”, “display through the ID validation portal accessible by one or more user computing devices”, “utilizing the AI/ML model via the first API”, “an AI/ML model datastore”, “training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”, “an electronic message to user's email associated with the user computing device”, and “training the AI/ML model based on the historical data received from a plurality of data sources providing data corresponding to customer activity pattern data, wherein the customer activity pattern data includes one or more of the following: …”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of an “identification verification protocol” using computer technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “allocated memory”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8, and 10 further describe the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 2 recites a new additional element of “a printer located at the branch office”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 3 recites a new additional element of “an electronic mail server”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 4 recites a new additional element of “an Identification Verification as a Service API”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 5 recites a new additional element of “a database”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 8 recites a new additional element of “cloud-based application over the Internet”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 10 recites a new additional element of “a cloud based datastore”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claims 1-5, 8, and 10 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Novis et al (U. S. Patent No. 11132685 B1) – Systems And Methods Of Providing Identity Verification Services
Novis discloses a system and method including an identity verification kiosk. The identity verification kiosk may include a display comprising a user interface; a card reader; a document scanner; a printer; and a processor in data communication with a server and a database storing user information. The processor may be configured to receive an identification verification request from the user interface; receive user information via the document scanner or the card reader; retrieve user information from the database; verify the identity of a user; and print a unique identifier on a document using the printer.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights