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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 04, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on November 04, 2025. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended. No new claims have been added. No new claims have been canceled, with claim 9 remaining canceled. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1 and 11. Thus claims 1-20 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 “in Step 2A, Prong One – Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea; the claimed invention is directed to a specific improvement in computer-implemented fraud verification, namely, a coordinated, cloud-based architecture enabling secure, interoperable identity validation across multiple computing systems and identification formats; amended claim 1 now recites concrete components and interactions; these recitations of concrete components and interactions reflect a technological solution to a technological problem, e.g., how to achieve secure, cross-system fraud verification and AI-based decisioning in a cloud environment; as in Enfish, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality rather than to an abstract concept; Step 2A, Prong Two – Claims are Integrated into a Practical Application; the claim recites a specific sequence of technical operations that: improves distributed fraud-verification technology, enhances system security and auditability, automates decisioning and feedback using AI/ML-based confidence score, and reduces human error and latency; such integration is analogous to DDR Holdings; similarly, in McRO, automation via specific rule-based algorithms was held patent-eligible, and therefore, the AI/ML-driven threshold logic and multi-API coordination provide a comparable improvement in technological operation; Step 2B – The Claim Recites Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea; the ordered combination of claim elements provides an inventive concept; the dual-API orchestration of using two distinct APIs for different roles in the validation process is not routine or conventional; the AI/ML confidence scoring that includes the generation of a threshold-based confidence score from rules and historical data provides a novel, technical fraud detection mechanism; the distributed system integration in real time is a specific arrangement that improves both the security and scalability of ID verification; and as in BASCOM, the present claims, taken as a whole, recite exactly such a non-conventional arrangement.”
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, 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) including an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming 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 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 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 wherein: when determining that the confidence score is less than the threshold value, automatically transmitting a request for one or more additional verification documents from the customer to the user computing device for further processing and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents; and 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; and updating the relational database with the validation result and confidence score for auditing and subsequent model retraining”, 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”, “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”, “a Software as a Service (SaaS) including an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming 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, validation of the digital image by the cloud computing platform”, “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”, “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”, “the user computing device for further processing and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”, “an electronic message”, and “auditing and subsequent model retraining”, 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, 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 claims are not directed to improving computers or related technologies, 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.
Claim 11 also recites the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “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”, “a Software as a Service (SaaS) including an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming interface (API)”, “a processor”, “a memory operatively connected to the processor via a communication interface, the memory storing computer readable instructions that when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform …”, “establishing a communication link among the scanning device, the server, the cloud computing platform hosted on a public cloud, the AI/ML model, and the SaaS via a communication network”, “a digital image”, “transmitting, by executing the scanning device, the digital image from the scanning device to the server”, “reading, by executing the cloud computing platform via a first API, the digital image from the server”, “requesting, via a second API different from the first API, validation of the digital image by executing the cloud computing platform”, “transmitting, via the second API, the digital image from the cloud computing platform to the SaaS and to the validation API”, “a relational database operatively connected to the SaaS”, “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”, “the user computing device for further processing and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”, “an electronic message”, and “auditing and subsequent model retraining”, which 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., “a processor” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of 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 or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 11 is non-statutory.
Claim 20 also recites the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, as well as the additional elements “a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions for fraud verification across user identification formats, the instructions, when executed, cause a processor to perform the following”, “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”, “a Software as a Service (SaaS) including an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming interface (API)”, “a processor”, “a memory operatively connected to the processor via a communication interface, the memory storing computer readable instructions that when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform …”, “establishing a communication link among the scanning device, the server, the cloud computing platform hosted on a public cloud, the AI/ML model, and the SaaS via a communication network”, “a digital image”, “transmitting, by executing the scanning device, the digital image from the scanning device to the server”, “reading, by executing the cloud computing platform via a first API, the digital image from the server”, “requesting, via a second API different from the first API, validation of the digital image by executing the cloud computing platform”, “transmitting, via the second API, the digital image from the cloud computing platform to the SaaS and to the validation API”, “a relational database operatively connected to the SaaS”, “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”, “the user computing device for further processing and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”, “an electronic message”, and “auditing and subsequent model retraining”, which 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., “a processor” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of 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 or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 20 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.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner notes that the following limitations: “when determining that the confidence score is less than the threshold value, … to the user computing device for further processing and training the AI/ML model …” and “updating the relational database … and confidence score for auditing and subsequent model training” are intended uses of “one or more processors”; and therefore, carries limited patentable weight. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 11 and 20. (MPEP § 2103 (I) (C)).
Claim Interpretation - Optional Language
Claim 1, recites the limitation: “when determining that the confidence score is less than the threshold value, automatically transmitting a request for one or more additional verification documents …”. The limitation “automatically transmitting a request for one or more 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 1-8 and 10-20 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 1-8 and 10 are directed to a “method”; claims 11-19 are directed to a “system”; and claim 20 is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”. 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 (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) including an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming 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 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 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 wherein: when determining that the confidence score is less than the threshold value, automatically transmitting a request for one or more additional verification documents from the customer to the user computing device for further processing and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents; and 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; and updating the relational database with the validation result and confidence score for auditing and subsequent model retraining”. 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”, “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”, “a Software as a Service (SaaS) including an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming 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, … the digital image by the cloud computing platform”, “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”, “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”, “the user computing device for further processing and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”, “an electronic message”, and “auditing and subsequent model retraining”, 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, the use of 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 or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 11 also recites the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, as well as the additional elements of “a system”, “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”, “a Software as a Service (SaaS) including an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming interface (API)”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “a communication interface”, “establishing a communication link among the scanning device, the server, the cloud computing platform hosted on a public cloud, the AI/ML model, and the SaaS via a communication network”, “a digital image”, “transmitting, by executing the scanning device, the digital image from the scanning device to the server”, “reading, by executing the cloud computing platform via a first API, the digital image from the server … via a second API different from the first API, … the digital image by executing the cloud computing platform”, “transmitting, via the second API, the digital image from the cloud computing platform to the SaaS and to the validation API”, “receiving by executing the cloud computing platform, via the second API, an ID validation response from the SaaS based on existing 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”, “utilizing the AI/ML model via the first API”, “stored in an AI/ML model datastore”, “the user computing device for further processing and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”, “an electronic message”, and “auditing and subsequent model retraining”, which 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., “a processor” and “a memory”). Therefore, the use of 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 or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 11 is non-statutory.
Claim 20 also recites the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, as well as the additional elements “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a processor”, “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) including an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming interface (API) via a communication network”, “a digital image”, “transmitting, by executing the scanning device, the digital image from the scanning device to the server”, “reading, by executing the cloud computing platform via a first API, the digital image from the server … via a second API different from the first API, … the digital image by executing the cloud computing platform”, “transmitting, via the second API, the digital image from the cloud computing platform to the SaaS and to the validation API”, “receiving by executing 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”, “utilizing the AI/ML model via the first API”, “stored in an AI/ML model datastore”, “the user computing device for further processing and training the AI/ML model with the received additional verification documents”, “an electronic message”, and “auditing and subsequent model retraining”, which 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., “a processor” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of 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 or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 20 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2 and 12 recite the additional element of “the scanning device is 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 the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite the additional element of “the server is an electronic mail server shared by a plurality of users 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 the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 4 and 14 recite the additional element of “the second API is 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 the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 5 and 15 further describe the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”. Specifically, they recite “…, further comprising: receiving the existing data from a database that stores the existing data that includes profile information data corresponding to the customer including first name, last name, home address, phone number, and email address.” The additional element of “a database” 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 the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 6 and 16 recite the additional element of “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”, 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 the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 7 and 17 further describe the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”. Specifically, they recite “… 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 additional element of “the scanning device is located or different branches” 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 the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite the additional element of “the SaaS allows users at the branch to connect to and use cloud-based applications 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 the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Dependent claims 10 and 19 recite the additional element of “implementing an identification validation portal to read the identification validation response generated by the SaaS from 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 the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Hence, claims 1-8 and 10-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 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 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.
New Matter
Claim 1 recites, “establishing a communication link …, and a Software as a Service (SaaS) including an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming interface (API) …”. Specification, (PG Pub US 20250156873 A1, FIG. 5, items 508, 521, 526; para 92) recites “… The cloud computing platform 507 may be operatively connected to a SaaS 521 which may include an ID validation API 508 …”, which is directed to a SaaS 521 that includes an ID validation API 508 without an identification validation portal, and being operatively connected to the cloud computing platform 507; and is not directed to a SaaS that includes an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation API. Specification, (‘873 A1, FIG. 5, items 508, 521, 526; para 92), lacks sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how a Software as a Service (SaaS) includes an identification (ID) validation portal and an ID validation application programming interface (API)”, as being claimed. Therefore, this is an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 11 and 20. Dependent claims 2-8 and 10, which depend from claim 1, and dependent claims 12-19, which depend from claim 11, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I).
Claim 1 recites, “when determining that the confidence score is less than the threshold value, automatically transmitting a request for one or more additional documents from the customer …”. Specification, (PG Pub US 20250156873 A1, para 103) 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 …”, which is directed to the determining module being configured to determine that the confidence score is less than the configurable threshold value, and the receiving module being configured to receive additional verification documents from the customer, however, it is not directed to how the confidence score is determined to be less than the threshold value, and it is not directed to automatically transmitting a request for one or more additional verification documents from the customer contingent on the confidence score being determined to be less than the threshold value. Thus, the written description is not met.
Specification, (‘873 A1, para 123) 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 …”, which is directed to the process determining that the confidence score is less than the configurable threshold value, and receiving additional verification documents from the customer, however, it is not directed to how the confidence score is determined to be less than the threshold value, and it is not directed to automatically transmitting a request for one or more additional verification documents from the customer contingent on the confidence score being determined to be less than the threshold value. Thus, the written description is not met.
Specification, (‘873 A1, para 129) recites “… the instructions, when executed, may cause the processor 104 to further perform the following: determining that the confidence score is less than the configurable threshold value; receiving additional verification documents from the customer …”, which is directed to the processor determining that the confidence score is less than the configurable threshold value, and receiving additional verification documents from the customer, however, it is not directed to automatically transmitting a request for one or more additional verification documents from the customer contingent on the confidence score being determined to be less than the threshold value. Thus, the written description is not met.
Specification, (‘873 A1, paras 103, 123, 129), lacks sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how automatically transmitting a request for one or more additional verification documents from the customer contingent on the confidence score being determined to be less than the threshold value is to be performed, as being claimed. The written description requirement is not met. Therefore, this is an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 11 and 20. Dependent claims 2-8 and 10, which depend from claim 1, and dependent claims 12-19, which depend from claim 11, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claim 11 recites “a memory operatively connected to the processor …, the memory storing computer readable instructions that when executed by the processor causes the process to perform the following: …”. Claim 11 also recites “scanning an identification document … by executing the scanning device”; “generating, …, a digital image … by executing the scanning device”; and “transmitting, by executing the scanning device, the digital image …”. It is not clear whether the processor or the scanning device, or some combination thereof, is performing the steps of scanning, generating, and transmitting.
Claim 11 also recites “reading, by executing the cloud computing platform, … and requesting, …, validation of the digital image by executing the cloud computing platform, …”; “receiving by executing the cloud computing platform, …”, and “generating by executing the cloud computing platform”. It is not clear whether the processor or the cloud computing platform, or some combination thereof, is performing the steps of reading, requesting, receiving, and generating.
MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, the scope of claim 11 is unclear. Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 20. Dependent claims 12-19, which depend from claim 11, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claim 20 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions …, the instructions, when executed cause a processor to perform the following: …”. It is not clear whether the processor or some other device, or some combination thereof, is executing the instructions to perform the steps of establishing, scanning, generating, transmitting, reading, transmitting, receiving, storing, generating, determining, and updating.
MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, the scope of claim 20 is unclear. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rhoads (U. S. Patent No. 7620200 B2) – Authentication Of Identification Documents
Rhoads discloses an apparatus helpful for authenticating or protecting physical and electronic documents like financial documents and identification documents. One claim recites an apparatus including: an authenticator including or utilizing a processor which uses first information in a first portion of data associated with an object as a basis of first authentication information, the first information also being obtainable from a first portion of the object; and an incorporator including or utilizing a processor which incorporates the first authentication information in a second portion of the data, the first authentication information also being obtainable from a second portion of the object. A recommendation is generated whether to approve the online account and an electronic credential is created for the first user based on acceptance of the online account.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN R CHISM whose telephone number is (571)272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM 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 at (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
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692