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 the Claims
Claims 9-16 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed May 13, 2025. Claims 9, 13 and 16 were amended, claims 14-15 were left as previously presented and claims 1-8 and 10-12 has been canceled. Claims 9 and 13-16 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 24, 2025 concerning the previous rejections of claims 9-16 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
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 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 limitation(s) are: “means for verifying an identity” and “means to form an identity system” in claims 9 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0053559) in view Anwar et al. referred herein as Anwar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0259602).
As to claim 9, Klein teaches a system that:
issues a unique number to refer to an actual address with a processor that links the unique number with the actual address or group of addresses; wherein each actual address includes addresses with a geographic basis, which includes a pair of latitude and longitude coordinates and at least street, postal addresses of buildings in addition to relational data that determines relations between different persons and identified addresses to financial addresses; (para 13)
wherein a unique numbers automatic linking mechanism includes in each of them at least part of one actual address and name of a person linked to the actual address; (para 81)
wherein the unique numbers are used to facilitate linking the actual address on a geographical basis including at least one street, postal address, and pair of latitude and longitude coordinates; (para 113)
wherein the system for identification of the real address of a user using the reference unique number includes: an initial transmitting processor received through a website through a processing unit, coding unit, accounts creation units, information reference creation for contact reference, content reference using an algorithm to identify a re-contact process through a phone, email or SMS; (para 126)
a storage device through a server system, contact signal to the content or a notifying party linked to the content; (para 144)
a unit for requesting identification documents to verify validity of a relationship between the address and an applicant in a customer's system; (para 47 and fig 5)
computer system that links information and provides a random unique number for the user comprising: a contact network interface, (para 67 and fig. 7)
through one or more networks, with smart devices or another computer system; (para 37 and fig. 2)
one or more processors; and one or more storage resources that store instructions to be inserted upon implementation by the one or more processor. (para 82, 84 and fig. 11)
means for verifying an identity of the user including a system that provides descriptive data responses to sound signals or images as a response to the user's response. (para 25, 38 and 42)
Klein does not teach:
a database for physical biometrics on one computer, smart tablet or smart phone in order to receive an electronic form of the sound signal or images to record the physical biometrics in the database for physical biometrics and record the same as a recorded physical biometric linked to a content identifier; and a device for physical biometrics including a programmed computer and linked to a physical biometric scanning device or smartphone with a physical biometric configuration to be linked to a database to receive electronic copies and measure the recorded physical biometrics of the electronic copies.
However, Anwar teaches:
a database for physical biometrics on one computer, smart tablet or smart phone in order to receive an electronic form of the sound signal or images to record the physical biometrics in the database for physical biometrics and record the same as a recorded physical biometric linked to a content identifier; (para 13, 24, 33, 37 and 39, the system verifies the identity of the user using a video captured for the user and compared to the data saved)
a device for physical biometrics including a programmed computer and linked to a physical biometric scanning device or smartphone with a physical biometric configuration to be linked to a database to receive electronic copies and measure the recorded physical biometrics of the electronic copies(para 13, 24, 33, 37 and 39)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use biometric data to verify the user’s identity in Klein as taught by Anwar. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Anwar that doing so would increase the acceptance rates for legitimate customers and accuracy levels for fraud detection.
As to claim 13, Klein in view of Anwar teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Klein further teaches:
a data analyzer to data including a programmed computer to receive a content identifier and identify descriptive data responses for the biometric data with different collection processors to process extracted corresponding digital codes and to provide a descriptive data response for content identifiers in the digital codes. (para 37 and fig. 2)
Klein does not teach:
a data analyzer to identify physical biometric data including a programmed computer to receive a content identifier and identify descriptive data responses for the biometric data with different collection processors to process extracted corresponding digital codes and to provide a descriptive data response for content identifiers in the digital codes.
However, Anwar teaches:
a data analyzer to identify physical biometric data including a programmed computer to receive a content identifier and identify descriptive data responses for the biometric data with different collection processors to process extracted corresponding digital codes and to provide a descriptive data response for content identifiers in the digital codes(para 13, 24, 33, 37 and 39)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use biometric data to verify the user’s identity in Klein as taught by Anwar. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Anwar that doing so would increase the acceptance rates for legitimate customers and accuracy levels for fraud detection.
As to claim 14, Klein in view of Anwar teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Klein further teaches:
wherein the collection processors include any one of: a database processor including a programmed computer that is configured to process databases linked to the content identifier; and different recording interfaces with collection forms to record different types of content identifiers for sound signals or images; wherein the database processor is configured to identify a priority of responding to the descriptive data response between the different types of content identifiers. (para 42 and fig. 4)
As to claim 15, Klein in view of Anwar teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Klein further teaches:
a system for authentication and auditing of identification papers. (para 19)
As to claim 16, Klein in view of Anwar teach all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Klein further teaches:
wherein the system for authentication comprises: a system for sending emails or SMSs including coded holder keys; (para 126)
wherein the SMS identifies a feature of a holder only maintained in a data storage of a digital identity system and storage location for the digital identity system; wherein a copy of this is saved in a unique number file of the user; (para 13)
wherein usage of the collection key permits decoding of the received holder key; and means to form an identity system into a digital identity, as a copy of saved in the storage location in the digital identity system, which is identified by the system; wherein any remaining steps cannot be implemented unless an approval data is identified as valid by the digital identity system; an issuing system for an approval identity; (para 40)
a linking system for linking the identity approval data in the storage of the digital identity system; (para 99)
wherein the email is considered as a request for an electronic sharing code to share the identity with the system.(para 33 and fig. 2)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628