Detailed Action
Claim 1 is pending and is examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claims 2-17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 1 is directed to the physical ballot as an article, while claims 2-16 recite methods and systems for processing ballots, including biometric voter verification, automatic ballot release, ballot imaging, linking images to ballot identifiers, automated ballot deposit, and transmission to a totalizer. Those additional limitations require searching materially different art including biometric identification systems, polling-booth dispensing mechanisms, ballot scanning/imaging and data-linking systems, printer/totalizer integration, and automated ballot-handling equipment, thereby imposing a substantial additional search burden. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 2-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Remarks
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
Remark 1: Applicant argues “Bauchot does not appear to disclose at least the [amended independent claims]. Bauchot merely discloses a ballot having (1) "a recorded vote comprising candidate/party information for an election held on a voting day in a jurisdiction" (2) a burnable radio frequency identification (RFID) tag that includes an on-tag fuse that is not blown, said recorded vote not being revealable while the fuse is not blown and being revealable in response to the fuse being subsequently blown" and (3) "a basic RFID tag that differs from the burnable passive RFID tag, wherein a signature of the jurisdiction is stored in a first data field of the basic RFID tag." Bauchot at [0024]-[0026]. Thus, Bauchot appears merely to relate to the use of RFID tags to reveal a vote on a ballot and does not appear to disclose "at least one of a unique number or code printed on the physical voting ballot after the one or more tags have been read" nor does Bauchot appear to disclose "a printed coded vote on the physical voting ballot, the printed coded vote being printed on the physical voting ballot based on a marking of a vote placed on the physical voting ballot by a voter" as recited by claim 1.”. (Applicant Arguments, 2025-11-10)
Response to Remark 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the cited references (e.g. Bauchot and Mazza) still teach currently amended claim 1, as shown at least in paragraphs X, Y, and Z of Mazza, and as further outlined in paragraph 7 of this action. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauchot et al. (US20090121019A1) (hereinafter “Bauchot”) in view of Mazza et al. (US20220406115A1) (hereinafter “Mazza”).
As per Claim 1, Bauchot teaches:
A Physical voting ballot comprising: (“A ballot paper and a voting system.” (Abstract); “The present invention provides a voting system, comprising: a ballot box configured to receive and authenticate a voted ballot paper and to generate a verified ballot paper from the voted ballot paper that has been authenticated by the ballot box.” (Para. 0020-0021) “The design layout of the Ballot Paper (200) is similar to a classic ballot paper.” (Para. 0055)).
one or more tags disposed at one or more locations on a surface of the physical voting ballot, (“The difference resides in the inclusion of two electronic devices represented by a basic passive RFID tag (202) and a burnable passive RFID tag (204).” (Para. 0056); “The RFID tags (202, 204) can be implemented either on the surface or embedded in the substrate of a Ballot Support (206).” (Para. 0056); “The present invention uses a wireless tracking system and method by mixing both reading and writing a RFID tag in real time in concert with the stating of an on-tag fuse RFID tag, all of them implemented either on the surface or embedded in the substrate of a Ballot Support.” (Para. 0046)).
the tags configured to identify the physical voting ballot (“The first data field (208) contains a jurisdiction's signature (212) that identifies a genuine versus counterfeited ballot paper.” (Para. 0058); “To meet these requirements, the burnable passive RFID tag (204) has a hard-coded ballot paper identification (218) embedded in its data field (220).” (Para. 0065); “The readable machine reads the notification message, identifies the device, and then performs an action which is indicated in the stored message is initiated.” (Para. 0048)
at least one of a unique number or code (“To meet these requirements, the burnable passive RFID tag (204) has a hard-coded ballot paper identification (218) embedded in its data field (220).” (Para. 0065); “The assessor's signature key (214) is put on the second data field (210) after authenticating the Ballot Paper (200), once inserted in the Ballot Box. It is noted that the assessor's signature key (214) can concatenate different information that form a secure encrypted message, like an assessor identification, via a personal key, when validating the voter's act and/or a ballot number.” (Para. 0061); “Blowing on-tag fuse (216) is irreversible and makes the Ballot Paper (200) unique and not reusable. An adequate mechanism (not shown here) reads, controls, and validates the hard-coded identification at the counting and sorting step.” (Para. 0068)).
Bauchot does not disclose:
“printed on the physical voting ballot after the one or more tags have been read: and” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Mazza in the analogous art of secure voting, teaches: “printed on the physical voting ballot after the one or more tags have been read: and”. (See “The Reader-Ballot Submission Machine will read the barcode and determine if the ballot is authentic and eligible to be counted.” (Para. 0069); “Electronically creates and prints a ballot serial number (shuffled in lots of 10 or other number variations) on the submitted (cast) ballot.” (Para. 0012); “the tabulator will print the same red circles (or marks) onto the Voter's original ballot and gives the ballot a sequentially generated Ballot Serial Number.” (Para. 0070)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Bauchot with the technique of Mazza to include printing a unique number or code on the physical voting ballot after the ballot tags have been read. Therefore, the incentives of improving ballot traceability, strengthening auditability, and providing a human-visible identifier tied to machine processing provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Bauchot does not disclose:
“printed coded vote on the physical voting ballot” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Mazza in the analogous art of secure voting, teaches: “printed coded vote on the physical voting ballot”. (See “Shows a high-resolution electronic image of the ballot on a monitor screen that shows colored circles or other identifying marks around or on or near every filled in oval marks on the ballot.” (Para. 0011); “Upon submitting (casting) the ballot, the machine prints the colored verification marks on the ballot to further verify in hard copy that the tabulator machine recorded the ballot results as it was shown on the screen.” (Para. 0014); “Upon ballot submission (cast), the printer inside the submission machine, marks the colored verification circles or other types of marks on or near the filled in oval mark data of original ballot.” (Para. 0018)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Bauchot with the technique of Mazza to include printing coded vote information on the physical voting ballot. Therefore, the incentives of creating a hard-copy verification of the machine-interpreted vote, increasing voter confidence in tabulation accuracy, and preserved a ballot that contains both machine-readable and human-verifiable vote indicia provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Bauchot does not disclose:
“the printed coded vote being printed on the physical voting ballot based on a marking of a vote placed on the physical voting ballot by a voter.” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Mazza in the analogous art of secure voting, teaches: “the printed coded vote being printed on the physical voting ballot based on a marking of a vote placed on the physical voting ballot by a voter.”. (See “When the voter completes filling in the ovals (and any and all variations of this) on the paper ballot, the Voter will cast the ballot by feeding the completed ballot into the document feeder slot.” (Para. 0069); “An image of the ballot will appear on a monitor screen with superimposed electronic images of red circles (and/or any and all variations of this) around every ballot oval dot filled in by the Voter.” (Para. 0069); “When the voter determines the tabulator has read and placed images of red circle marks on the ballot correctly, the voter will press the “submit and print” button (and any and all variations of this) where the tabulator will print the same red circles (or marks) onto the Voter's original ballot and gives the ballot a sequentially generated Ballot Serial Number and generates a time and date stamp including the Ballot Submission Machine ID number.” (Para. 0070)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Bauchot with the technique of Mazza to include printing coded vote information on the ballot based on the voters ballot markings. Therefore, the incentives of correlating the voter’s original ballot marks with the systems recorded interpretation of those marks, reducing ambiguity in post-election review, and improving transparency between voter action and machine output provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20040016802 (Cummings), discussing “. . . Similar interactive color display messages may be provided on display 40 of ballot marking device 22. Initially, an amber display (FIG. 12A) may prompt the voter to insert an unmarked ballot. When the ballot is in place and while the voter is using terminal 23, a steady red message (FIG. 12B) may be displayed. When voting is complete, a flashing red message may be displayed to prompt the voter to remove the machine-marked ballot and take the ballot to scanner device 24. When the mechanism is functioning as a ballot marking device, push- button switches 44 and 45 are preferably inoperative, unlit and display no indicia. To enable vote tallies to be transmitted to a central processing location upon poll closing, a communication port 115 (FIG. 3A) and modem 116 may be provided which, under control of processor 90, causes an appropriate signal to be transmitted indicative of the tallies. Various security provisions are possible, including encryption through the use of an embedded electronic serial number (ESN) in processor 90 and ballot data module 26, which serial numbers are required to be transmitted and received at the central processing location before ballot tallies, preferably encrypted, are received as authentic election results. An additional function which may be required of ballot scanning device 24, but not of ballot marking device 22, is that the ballot, after processing, is selectively discharged into one or two compartments 37 and 38 within ballot box 25, depending on whether the ballot contains write-in votes. To this end, when a mark is sensed in a marking space on a write-in vote line, as indicated by the data provided by data module 27 and stored in RAM 91, a ballot routing gate 117 (FIGS. 3 and 4) is positioned by an actuator motor 118 to a position which will discharge the ballot into the appropriate compartment. A rotation sensor in the form of a circumferentially segmented disc 119 and optical rotation sensor 120, provide a feedback signal to a conventional stepper motor drive circuit 121, which causes gate 117 to be positioned as determined by processor 90.” (Para. 0058-0060)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A. Jimenez whose telephone number is (571) 270-3080. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached on 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.
/Justin Jimenez/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697