DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 01/18/2024.
Claims 1-12 are pending and examined hereon.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities as the claim is not presented as object of a sentence. That is, claim 1 recites“…during and after an election.” in which there is a period following the term election.
Claims 3-4 are also objected based on the same rational.
Appropriate correction is required. (See MPEP § 608.01(m))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowable over the prior art of record, and would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections are overcome. Although Onischuk discloses elements of the claims as provided below neither Onischuk nor Ruskin disclose: first, second and third AIPs, said software engine providing a first application program interface (API) to be accessed by said end user application; said first API used to obtain the current program and operating system executable code hash values for public display; said second API used to provide said election authority facility unassigned encrypted SVNs for assignment to voters; said software engine providing a third API to be accessed by said election authority facility and authorized third parties; backup copies in the event of a catastrophic disruption of the voting facility, reconstruction elsewhere to resume the election process; receiving the encrypted SVNs from the main server along with corresponding unencrypted PVNs and ballot data for independent duplicate hashing, verification and storage; wherein encrypted SVNs on election authority servers are different from the encrypted form of those same numbers stored in ballots.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a secondary engine” “said first engine,” “said primary engine” in Claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to “Method” a (Process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of voting/surveying, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and “Mathematical Concepts,” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test since the steps include commercial interactions, managing relationships and mathematical calculations (See MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)). The use of a physical aid to help perform Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept steps does not negate the Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concept nature of the limitations, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a Methods of Organized Human Activity and Mathematical Concepts even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to processing voting/surveying data as the claim steps involve in communicating with voters for registration and voting which includes processing the registration and voting data. More specifically, the following non-underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the underlined, bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claims 1,
A method for providing transparent security to a voting system comprising the steps of:
assisting an election authority voter registration and monitoring facility;
implementing a primary voter authorization, vote recording, and vote tabulation and reporting software engine operating on a first server;
assisting a third party an end-user voter application;
said software engine providing a first application program interface (API) to be accessed by said end user application;
said first API used as a resource and repository for the authorization and recording of votes;
said first API used to obtain voter identification information and documents to be used for voter authentication;
said first API used to obtain the current program and operating system executable code hash values for public display;
said software engine providing a second API to be accessed by said election authority facility;
said second API used by said engine to request and receive voter credential data to be used for voter authentication;
said second API used to provide said election authority facility unassigned encrypted SVNs for assignment to voters;
said second API used to notify said election authority facility that a voter has voted;
said second API used to enable a voter to observe and print their ballot contents;
said second API used to enable a voter to cancel their ballot while it is unfrozen;
said second API used to periodically or at random intervals verify that the number of countable ballots matches the number of voters who voted and to report any discrepancies on said first API;
said software engine providing a third API to be accessed by said election authority facility and authorized third parties;
said third API used to provide election results on election count day;
said third API used to provide backup copies of essential files for the purposes of verification and, in the event of a catastrophic disruption of the voting facility, reconstruction elsewhere to resume the election process;
said third API used to support various monitoring and status reporting during and after an election.
providing a secondary engine operating on a second server, in tandem and independent from said first engine, while said primary engine has no dependency on information coming from the secondary engine;
said secondary engine performing duplicate ballot and hash processing;
receiving the encrypted SYNs from the main server along with corresponding unencrypted PVNs and ballot data for independent duplicate hashing, verification and storage;
said primary engine operating on said first server:
assigning each voter a unique public voter number (PVN) and a unique secret voter number (SYN);
said public voter number (PVN) assigned to and identifiable by an individual voter;
said secret voter number (SVN) identifiable by said first engine;
said SVNs undergoing encryption utilize two asymmetric encryption key pairs wherein encrypted SVNs on election authority servers are different from the encrypted form of those same numbers stored in ballots;
storing encryption and decryption keys offsite on a separate key server and not providing them to the election authority or storing them on said engine, but allowing them to reside temporarily in said engine memory;
said primary engine on a first server performing all SVN encryption and decryption and providing encrypted SVNs to said election authority for subsequent assignment to voters;
allowing said voters to vote at intervals and times preceding election ballot count day:
providing to said end-user voting application a ballot record for each individual voter's collection of votes;
obtaining from said end-user voting application a completed ballot record for each individual voter's collection of votes;
stamping said received ballot record with a time, date and facility indicator;
notifying said voter from said primary engine, of said received ballot record by audio, text, email and/or postal mail;
assigning a status of unfrozen ballots, which are modifiable;
allowing voter inspection and interrogation of their ballot at any point during and for a period after the election, and cancellation of their ballot before it is frozen;
after a predetermined period (e.g., 72 hours) assigning a status of frozen to ballots, which become unmodifiable; and
tabulating frozen ballots.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements are merely used as circuitry and tools to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the use of the additional elements as a tools to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Additionally, the additional element of “ballot data for independent duplicate hashing,” “said SVNs undergoing encryption utilize two asymmetric encryption key pairs,” “storing encryption and decryption keys,” and “a first server performing all SVN encryption and decryption and providing encrypted SVNs,” also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), using the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of the abstract idea. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of voting/surveying. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and implement the abstract idea. Further, the additional element of hashing, encrypting and decrypting also does not improve a computer as it represents the mere performance of a mathematical calculation by a computer. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 further describe the abstract idea of voting/surveying. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “said first engine,” “said primary engine,” “the main server,” and “said engine memory.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. That is, although the claim preceding those elements recite engine and server, the claim do not provider proper antecedent basis for “said primary engine,” “the main server,” and “said engine memory.” Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claims 2-12 are also rejected as each depend on claim 1.
Claim limitations “secondary engine operating on a second server… said secondary engine performing duplicate ballot and hash processing…” and “said primary engine on a first server performing all SVN encryption and decryption and providing encrypted SVNs…” in Claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Although the specification describes,
“When a vote or votes are processed by the present invention, each vote or votes (by a single voter) create a “ballot record” (BR) in an Accountable Democracy Engine (ADE) with the same information that is presented on the receipt, except instead of the public voter number (PVN) it contains the voter's secret number (SVN) encrypted (see also Secret Number Obscurity below).” (PGPub Par. [0043])
“The second server 380 runs in “slave” mode and essentially duplicates all ballot accounting processes performed by the main server 350.” (Par. [0073])
The specification does not describe the algorithm for performing the recited function. Because these limitations invoke 112(f), the specification must clearly link the recited functions to the corresponding structure. For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the corresponding structure includes both the computer and the algorithm that performs the recited functions. This requirement is described in the notice issued in the Federal Register on March 8, 2011 (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2011/week10/TOC.htm#ref15).
Specifically, the notice states:
3. Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations: For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking §112, ¶6, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general-purpose computer or microprocessor.96 To claim a means for performing a particular computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming.97
The structure corresponding to a §112, ¶6 claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general-purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification.98 The corresponding structure is not simply a general-purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.99
The notice further states:
A rejection under §112, ¶2 is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor.103 For example, mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming,104 or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish the software function,105 would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of §112, ¶2. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function.106
Here, the specification does not recite that the “secondary engine,” and “primary engine” are associated with any computer, microprocessor, or other structure, where the computer performs the algorithms necessary to carry out the functions of “performing duplicate ballot and hash processing…” and “performing all SVN encryption and decryption and providing encrypted SVNs…” The terms “engines” are non-structural terms (See 35 USC §112 Supplementary Examination Guidelines, slide 40, 4/8/2011, available at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/112_suppl_exam_2011.ppt). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected as each depend on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PGPub Onischuk (US 2018/0350180 A1) discloses
assisting an election authority voter registration and monitoring facility; (Pars. [0748] “(p)(9)(a) whereby Officials physically, optically, electromagnetically and/or electronically print and send or render and display or auditorily broadcast or transmit to each successfully registered a Voter and Proxy Voter, their personal Voter Registration Confirmation form (refer to FIG. 31) or Proxy Voter Registration form which the Voter may use to enable Voting in person, or may be kept or returned or submitted with their completed Ballot or Language Selection form when required by Officials;” [0770] “…all of which is monitored, controlled, co0-joined, merged and processed by the Ballot Agents and Ballot Agents Voting System Devices and software programs;”)
implementing a primary voter authorization, vote recording, and vote tabulation and reporting software engine operating on a first server; (Pars. [0070]-[0075] “provide a voting method and system that allows one or more Voters to completely verify the accurate recording, tally and publication of each vote on any Proposal or Candidate or any number of combinations of candidates and proposals… (E) the capability for Voters to use the verified or corrected public record of all votes cast to verify or authorize correction of the tallies or summaries of votes;”)
assisting a third party an end-user voter application; (Par. [0754] “a plurality of Voting Session Primary Officials research potential Voters, accept applications for Voter and Proxy Voter registrations,”)
(Pars. [0346] “each voter may be required to submit their unique Voter Personal Identifier (similar to bank ATM card personal identifier) that may be comprised of personal signature, personal initials, letters, numbers, words, graphic images or any combination thereof so as to confirm their identity and authorization to cast a Voting Ballot;” [0574] “(h) the TELVALS records the Ballot RSID and correlates it to the TEL with the date, time, Official Telephone Device ID and optionally, the Voter telephone number when available;”)
(Pars. [0346], [0547] “Voter is prompted by IVALS to provide their own Voter Privacy Key comprised of any combination of PassCode, PassWord, PassPhrase, Signature, Initials, Glyph, Symbols, Picture, Music, Song, Poem, Book or other personal validation reference to privately sign to enable Voter post-voting authentication and to enable secure encryption of each Voter specific Voting Session;”)
said software engine providing (Pars. [0757] “Ballot Processing Agents and Primary Officials of the Voting Session exchange and share said Official Ballot Record Groups… each of which are managed by a plurality of Primary Officials and Primary Officials Voting Session devices, or Ballot Agents and Ballot Agents Devices or any combinations thereof so long as neither any Primary Officials nor any Ballot Agents are able to employ any devices or data access permissions so as to independently correlate, derive, infer or compute the Official Ballot Record Group data and Voter Ballot selections and Write-In Choices to any specific Voter or Proxy Voter;” [0761])
(Pars. [0346], [0547])
(Par. [0773] “any number of Ballot Agents and any number of Ballot Agent Voting System Devices and software programs verifying and then marking the List of Voter Public RSIDs so as to indicate the cast Ballot status (examples: CastOK, Spoiled, Incomplete) and to signal and disable the same Voter Public RSID from being used again (unless allowed multiple ballots by the Electoral Board and Voting Session Rules in which case the threshold limit is checked and the Voter or Proxy Voter is enabled or disabled accordingly);”)
said second API used to enable a voter to observe and print their ballot contents; (Pars. [0652] “menu-options Save, Print, Publish, Email, TelText Message, Fax Message, Interactive Television Message to record, store, replicate and send copies of Voter selections that were made;”)
(Pars. [0648]-[0651] “(1) the Active Enabled Voter is connected to the Telephone Voting System (TELVOTS); (2) a unique Telephone Voting Session ID (TELVOTSID) is generated, stored and associated with each Ballot Voting RSID provided by the Active Enabled Voter… (iii) menu options to process the Vote Selections (Submit, Cancel, Reset, Save, Pause, Resume, Exit)”)
(“further Primary Officials (Registration Officials) regularly review said List of Voter Public RSIDs and upon detecting that a Voter Public RSID has voted, obtains the correlated Voter Private RSID and accesses that Voter Registration data to mark that they have cast a ballot, and the status of that Ballot when submitted; or, alternatively”)
(Fig. 30)
(Par. [0742] “(p)(3) Officials and Officials Voting Session Devices and machines and computers running software programs actively:… of said Documents, Forms, Containers for manual or automated processing of scanning wherein said reading of each Document, Form and Container includes First capturing an optical image that is an exact duplicate copy representation of the originally submitted Document, Form or Container, then accurately recording then securely storing the captured duplicate image of the Document, Form or Container;”)
(Pars. [0058], [0151] “(U) Officials actively authenticating, validating, monitoring, tracking, and assessing: actively participating voters, proxy voters, officials, official devices, voter and proxy voter devices, communications systems, computer processes and services—allowing valid, authentic activities but disallowing invalid, unauthenticated, and unapproved activities.” [0231])
providing a secondary engine operating on a second server, in tandem and independent from said first engine, while said primary engine has no dependency on information coming from the secondary engine; (Par. [0034] “(r) to ensure the integrity of the voting session, uniquely enabling and performing internal auditing capabilities of each data Object, data Object Events, participating Voter and Officials connected devices, security processes and all related signals, messages and communications;” [0492], [0752], [0753])
said secondary engine performing duplicate ballot (Par. [0464] “Said polling stations employ various devices to connect to data communications infrastructure (telephone, Internet, television) so as to then connect to said Voter and Proxy Voters and further said polling stations devices also act to record, store and enable said remote Voters to register, cast their Ballots for Official tallying, review submitted data, amend or report errors whereby:”) and hash processing; (Par. [0325] “H.9) Further improvements of my invention use the use of hashing algorithms and values,”)
said primary engine operating on said first server:
assigning each voter a unique public voter number (PVN) (Pars. [0714] “Voter Registration Objects and data assembled as a Voter ID data card… containing specific information pertaining to a particular Eligible Voter or designated Proxy Voter, such as their government public identification data, private voting session Identifiers and Official PassCodes, and private personal information such as: face pictures, body size scale pictures, eye retina images, fingerprint images, images of their personal handwritten signatures and initials that all encoded and securely stored using encryption…” [0750] “Voter Registration Confirmation Document also comprises… Poll Station Voter Sequence Number(s) Identifier(s), Voter Identifier(s), Voter SuperKey Identifier(s), Home Address Identifier, Mailing Address Identifier, General Instructions Identifier, Voter Special Instructions Identifier, (unique) Voter Registration Confirmation Identifier;”) and a unique secret voter number (SVN); (Par. [0758] “10.(D) (i) any number of Primary Officials (Registration Officials) research and provide each Eligible Voter and each Eligible Proxy Voter with exactly one private, unique and extremely hard to guess, calculate and infer, static and immutable Voter Private Random Symbolic Identifier (Voter Private RSID) and also one correlated, modifiable unique Voter Private Passcode both of which the Voter keeps private and confidential;”)
said public voter number (PVN) assigned to and identifiable by an individual voter; (Par. [0761] “further step of at least one Ballot Agent or Ballot Agent Device generating one public, unique and extremely hard to guess, Voter Public Random Symbolic Identifier (Voter Public RSID) which also has a correlated Voter Public PassCode which is then revealed, communicated and provided to the Voter or Proxy Voter and is further recorded, stored in or on immutable media;”)
said secret voter number (SVN) identifiable by said first engine; (Par. [0752] “said Agent Voting Session Devices and Ballot related Voting data are independently managed and controlled by said Ballot Processing Agents, thereby isolating and securely keeping secret the correlation between the unique Ballot Voting Identifier, Ballot PassCode and the unique Voter Identifier, Voter Password, also keeping secret all Voter and Proxy Ballot selections, Write-In choices and Voter Personal Security Items, further securely keeping secret any other information that may directly or indirectly provide a significantly probable link between the Ballot and the Voter or Proxy Voter;”)
said SVNs undergoing encryption (Pars. [0501] “Voter Registration Vault containing all of the Voter private Voter Registration information in an encrypted form” [0749] “(p)(9)(b) said Voter Registration Confirmation form comprises… information data fields… said data fields are correlated to values for at least one of:… Poll Station Voter Sequence Number(s) Identifier(s), (unique) Voter Identifier(s), (unique) Voter SuperKey Identifier(s),”)
PGPub Ruskin et al. (US 2020/0160641 A1) discloses enable a voter to observe and print their ballot contents; (Pars. [0043] “the encrypted ballot variant 1200 is also printed by the receipt printer 603 and provided to the voter through the receipt output 605 b” [0053] “each encrypted ballot variant 1200 contains encrypted ballot selections 1201 for all non-write-in ballot options 1105 , and also contains encrypted ballot selections 1201 for several write-in ballot options 1105 (wherein the write-in ballot options 1105 are generated dynamically based on the input of voters, and based on predefined write-ic values).”)
PGPub (KR 101133183 B1) discloses said SVNs undergoing encryption utilize two asymmetric encryption key pairs (Page 8, Par. 4 “In the authentication step (b), the voter terminal and the authentication processing unit generate a session key (va) by a Diffie-Hellman method, and the voter terminal encrypts the voter identification number (Vi) in the authentication processing unit asymmetric key Encrypted using the function (E) (i.e., E va (Vi), where subscript va means the session key) and transmits, and the authentication processing unit sends the voter identification information (Vi) using the asymmetric key decryption function (D). (Ie, D va (E va (Vi)) = Vi),”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WODAJO GETACHEW whose telephone number is (469)295-9069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00 CST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/WODAJO GETACHEW/Examiner, Art Unit 3697