DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 2/27/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/28/2025.
a. Claims 1-2, 10, 13, 17, 21 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-12 are directed to a system, claims 13-20 are directed to system and claim 21 is directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 21, (which is representative of independent claims 1, 13) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 21 (which is representative of independent claims 1, 13) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A process for verifying voting totals:
[B] providing an electronic voting machine configured to record voting choices of a voter;
[C] providing a device configured to generate a receipt indicating the voting choices of the voter as cast on the electronic voting machine,
and further configured to
[D] store data indicating the voting choices of the voter as cast on the voting machine, the device being physically and functionally independent of the electronic voting machine; and the data indicating the voting choices of the voter, after being stored on the device, being non-alterable by an outside source;
[E] providing the receipt to the user; and
[F] publishing the data indicating the voting choices of the voter as stored in the device in a medium accessible to the voter.
[G] wherein the data indicating the voting choices of the voter, after being received by the control unit, cannot be altered by an outside source,
[H] wherein the device is physically and functionally independent of the electronic voting machine.
Independent claim 21 (which is representative of independent claims 1, 13) recites: storing voter’s choices ([D]); providing voter a receipt ([E]); and publishing the voting choices ([F]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 21 (which is representative of independent claims 1, 13) recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “voting machine”, “device to generate a receipt, i.e., printer” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the qualifiers “the data indicating the voting choices of the voter, after being stored on the device, being non-alterable by an outside source”, “wherein the device is physically and functionally independent of the electronic voting machine” are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: providing an electronic voting machine ([B]), providing a device to generate a receipt ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 21 (which is representative of independent claims 1, 13) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 21 (which is representative of claims independent 1, 13) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 13, 21 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 4 recites:
wherein the control unit comprises a memory, and the control unit is further configured to
[A] store in the memory the data indicating the voting choices of the voter.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “storing and retrieving information in/from memory”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”).
Therefore, dependent claim is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 20, which is representative of dependent claims 5, 6, recites: the control unit is further configured to
[A] download the data indicating the voting choices of the voter to a device configured to
[B] receive the data indicating the voting choices of the voter; and
control unit is further configured to
[C] communicate only with the electronic voting machine and
the device configured to
[D] receive the data indicating the voting choices of the voter.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”).
Therefore, dependent claim 20 (which is representative of dependent claims 5, 6) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites:
[A] receive inputs only from the electronic voting machine and
the device configured to
[B] receive the data indicating the voting choices of the voter.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites:
wherein the local area network consists of the voting-device, the electronic voting machine, and
the device configured to
[A] receive the data indicating the voting choices of the voter.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”).
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites:
wherein the control unit comprises the memory, a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, and computer-executable instructions stored on the memory and configured to,
upon execution by the processor,
[A] cause the printing unit to generate the voting receipt.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 16 recites:
[A] generate an output indicting the voting choices of the voter, and
the device for generating a voting receipt is configured to
[B] generate the voting receipt upon receiving the output of the electronic voting machine
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”).
Therefore, dependent claim 16 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites:
[A] generate the voting receipt on a real-time or near real-time basis with the recordation of the voting choices of the voter by the electronic voting machine.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”).
Therefore, dependent claim 19 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 17-18 recite:
wherein the voting receipt further incudes a time stamp indicating the time and date on which the voting choices of the voter were recorded by the electronic voting machine.
wherein the control unit is configured to be communicatively coupled to the electronic voting machine via an encrypted communication link.
wherein the control unit is further configured so that a running time and date upon which the time stamp is based cannot be altered by an outside source.
wherein the control unit is further configured so that the data indicating the voting choices of the voter cannot be altered or deleted from the memory by an outside source.
wherein the computer-executable instructions are open-source software.
wherein the electronic voting machine is one of an optical scanner and a direct recording electronic machine.
wherein the electronic voting machine and the device for generating voting receipts are provided by different manufacturers.
wherein the printout further incudes a time stamp indicating the time and date on which the voting choices of the voter were recorded by the electronic voting machine.
wherein the device for generating a voting receipt is communicatively coupled to the electronic voting machine via an encrypted communication link.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the voting receipt; the control unit; the computer instruction; the voting machine; the printout; the device for generating the voting receipt – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“tallying votes collected by an electronic voting machine”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 17-18 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. erasing
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daza Fernandez et al (US 2010/0114674), in view of Loyd (US 2021/0150542).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 21: Daza Fernandez discloses: A process for verifying voting totals, comprising:
providing an electronic voting machine configured to record voting choices of a voter; {see at least fig1, rc101, [0034] voting machine}
providing a device configured to generate a receipt indicating the voting choices of the voter as cast on the electronic voting machine, {see at least fig1, rc104, [0035] vote record contents (reads on receipt)}
store data indicating the voting choices of the voter as cast on the voting machine {see at least [0004] vote stored electronically}, the device being physically and functionally independent of the electronic voting machine; {see at least fig1, rc101, rc102, [0034] the units are physically and functionally independent}
and further configured to
providing the receipt to the user; and {see at least fig1, rc104, [0016]-[0020] vote record (reads on receipt}
publishing the data indicating the voting choices of the voter as stored in the device in a medium accessible to the voter. {see at least fig1, rc104, [0016]-[0020] vote record (reads on receipt}
Daza Fernandez does not disclose, however, Loyd discloses:
the data indicating the voting choices of the voter, after being stored on the device, being non-alterable by an outside source; {see at least [0038] blockchain recording prevents altering the vote}
wherein the device is physically and functionally independent of the electronic voting machine. {see at least fig1, rc104 (the voting machine) and rc108 (the device) are physically and functionally separate [0020]-[0024]}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Daza Fernandez to include the elements of Loyd. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide voting secuirty. In the instant case, Daza Fernandez evidently discloses providing the voter with a voting receipt. Loyd is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of unalterable votes in the same or similar context. Since both providing the voter with a voting receipt, as well as unalterable votes are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Daza Fernandez, as well as Loyd would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Daza Fernandez / Loyd.
Regarding Claims 2, 17: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 13. Loyd further discloses:
wherein the voting receipt further includes a time stamp indicating the time and date on which the voting choices of the voter were recorded by the electronic voting machine. {see at least [0031] time stamp when the vote is recorded (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads time and date)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Daza Fernandez, Loyd to include additional elements of Loyd. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a documented voting attest. In the instant case, Daza Fernandez, Loyd evidently discloses providing voter with a voting receipt. Loyd is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of voting time stamp with date and time in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 3, 18: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 13. Daza Fernandez further discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to be communicatively coupled to the electronic voting machine via an encrypted communication link. {see at least fig1, [0054] modules are connected. Daza Fernandez does not explicitly disclose “an encrypted communication link”, however “an encrypted communication link” is not given patentable weight because it is not directly related to the subject of the claim, i.e., the method could be performed even if the link is not encrypted}
Regarding Claims 5, 6, 20: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claims 4, 13. Daza Fernandez further discloses: the control unit is further configured to
download the data indicating the voting choices of the voter to a device configured to {see at least [claim54] transmit results to audit module (reads on downloading)}
receive the data indicating the voting choices of the voter; and {see at least [abstract] contains the vote options by voter); [0025], [0034]-[0036] voting options of the voter}
the control unit is further configured to
communicate only with the electronic voting machine and {see at least fig1, rc101, rc102, rc103, [0034] control unit communication with voting machine}
the device configured to
receive the data indicating the voting choices of the voter. {see at least fig1, rc101, rc102, rc103, [0034] control unit communication with voting machine}
Regarding Claim 7: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claim 6. Daza Fernandez further discloses: wherein the control unit is further configured to
receive inputs only from the electronic voting machine and {see at least fig1, rc101, rc102, rc103, [0034] control unit communication with voting machine}
the device configured to
receive the data indicating the voting choices of the voter. {see at least [abstract] contains the vote options by voter); [0025], [0034]-[0036] voting options of the voter}
Regarding Claim 8: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Daza Fernandez further discloses:
wherein the local area network consists of the voting-device, the electronic voting machine, and {see at least fig1, rc101, rc102, rc103, [0034] voting device and machine}
the device configured to
receive the data indicating the voting choices of the voter. {see at least [abstract] contains the vote options by voter); [0025], [0034]-[0036] voting options of the voter}
Regarding Claim 9: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Daza Fernandez further discloses: wherein the control unit is further configured so that
a running time and date upon which the time stamp is based cannot be altered by an outside source. {see at least [0062]-[0064] security of vote record (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on not alterable); [0067] security of stored vote based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), reads on not alterable}
Regarding Claim 10: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claim 4. Loyd further discloses: wherein the control unit is further configured so that
the data indicating the voting choices of the voter cannot be deleted from the memory by an outside source. {see at least [0038] blockchain recording prevents altering the vote (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), in this circumstance, deleting is interpreted as a form of alteration, for it is an extreme form or alteration that it has the same impact on the final result, i.e., a distorted voting result)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Daza Fernandez, Loyd to include additional elements of Loyd. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to prevent a distortion of the vote. In the instant case, Daza Fernandez, Loyd evidently discloses providing voter with a voting receipt. Loyd is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of deleting a vote in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claim 11. Daza Fernandez further discloses:
wherein the computer-executable instructions are open-source software. {Daza Fernandez does not explicitly disclose “open-source software”, however “open-source software” is not given patentable weight because it is not directly related to the subject of the claim, i.e., the method could be performed even if the software were not open-source}
Regarding Claim 14: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claim 13. Daza Fernandez further discloses:
wherein the electronic voting machine is one of an optical scanner and a direct recording electronic machine. {see at least fig1, rc101, rc102, rc103, [0034] direct recording machine}
Regarding Claim 15: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claim 13. Daza Fernandez further discloses:
wherein the electronic voting machine and the device for generating voting receipts are provided by different manufacturers. {Daza Fernandez does not explicitly disclose “provided by different manufacturers”, however “provided by different manufacturers” is not given patentable weight because it is not directly related to the subject of the claim, i.e., the method could be performed even if the voting machine and the voting receipt generation machine were not provided by different manufacturers}
Regarding Claim 16: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claim 13. Daza Fernandez further discloses: wherein the electronic voting machine is configured to
generate an output indicting the voting choices of the voter, and {{see at least fig1, rc104, [0035] vote record contents (reads on receipt)}
the device for generating a voting receipt is configured to
generate the voting receipt upon receiving the output of the electronic voting machine. {see at least fig1, rc104, [0016]-[0020] vote record (reads on receipt}
Regarding Claim 19: Daza Fernandez, Loyd discloses the limitations of Claim 13. Daza Fernandez further discloses: wherein the printing unit is configured to
generate the voting receipt on a real-time or near real-time basis with the recordation of the voting choices of the voter by the electronic voting machine. {see at least fig1, rc104, [0016]-[0020] vote record (reads on receipt). Daza Fernandez does not explicitly disclose “real-time or near real-time basis”, however “real-time or near real-time basis” is not given patentable weight because it is not directly related to the subject of the claim, i.e., the method could be performed even if the receipt would not have been generated on real-time or near real-time basis}
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20050044413 A1 Elms, Peter et al. Secure electronic registration and voting solution - The present invention is directed to a secure electronic registration and voting solution incorporating integrated end-to-end voting system architecture and processes providing secure identification and authentication, voter registration, ballot definition, ballot presentation to the voter, voting, and ballot tabulation via secure transmission over the network. The disclosed embodiments of the present invention describe an integrated solution to voting via a network, such as the Internet.
US 20090152339 A1 Hawkins; Richard et al. METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TAMPER PROOF ELECTRONIC VOTING WITH INTUITIVE USER INTERFACES - A tamper proof electronic voting machine with intuitive user interfaces.
US 20040060983 A1 Davis, Thomas G. et al. Direct vote recording system - A Direct Vote Recording System (DVRS) (10) has three primary components, Personal Computer (PC) (100) which runs an Election Management System (EMS), Direct Vote Recording Machine (DVRM) (300) and a Smart Card Activator Device (SCAD) (500). In addition, the DVRS includes Data Carriers (800), Voter Smart Cards (710) and Polling Office smart cards (720). The DVRS generally operates as follows: (1) data of a new election is created using the EMS software on the PC (100), (2) downloading that data to Ballot/Tally Data Carriers (800) which are then transported to Polling Place(s) where (3) the data is then loaded into the SCAD (500) and DVRM(s) (300), (4) hardware tests may then be conducted on the DVRS equipment and Test Voting may be performed to validate operational DVRS software and the accuracy of the downloaded election data, (5) the election is then conducted using the SCAD to generate Voter Smart Cards (710) for Test, Practice and Active voting, and the DVRM to collect votes, (6) polls are closed, the data is downloaded from the DVRM(s) (300) to the Data Carrier (800), and, (7) the Carrier (800) is returned to the PC where election results are computed and reports made. Test and Practice voting may only be conducted prior to opening the polls. The Polling Officer smart card (720) is used by a Polling Officer to control operation of the SCAD (500) and DVRMs (300) at the Polling Place.
US 20130048725 A1 Baumert; Dean System for Processing Folded Documents - A system for processing folded documents is disclosed. The system includes an input hopper configured to receive a stack of folded documents and an imaging area in which each of the documents is imaged. A pick-up mechanism is configured to transport each of the folded documents from the input hopper to the imaging area. The pick-up mechanism includes first and second barriers that are spaced apart to define a gap through which each of the folded documents is passed, wherein the gap is dimensioned to prevent passage of more than one of the folded documents. Preferably, the system also includes a detection system that is operable to detect the passage of more than one of the folded documents through a detection zone.
US 20200258338 A1 Goswami; Dhananjay et al. SECURE VOTING SYSTEM - A voting system can use the security of blockchain and the mail to provide a reliable voting system. A registered voter receives a computer readable code in the mail and confirms identity and confirms correct ballot information in an election. The system separates voter identification and votes to ensure vote anonymity, and stores votes on a distributed ledger in a blockchain.
US 6971574 B1 Herskowitz; Irving L. Method of accurately verifying election results without the need for a recount - Hash numbers are assigned to each individual ballot choice made by a particular voter and a hash total, establishing the voter's set of ballot choices, is recorded and a printed receipt is issued to the voter, bearing the voter's identification number, to assure him that his vote was correctly recorded along with his hash total. If the voter presents his receipt, to deny that he voted as shown on the receipt, an unfavorable comparison of the previously recorded hash total, with the hash total on the receipt, proves that the receipt was forged, and each such tampering attempt and voter ID is recorded. Recounts are unnecessary, unless the number of such recorded attempts at tampering exceed a predetermined number. A hacker attempt to change a recorded vote will fail because the hash totals of the altered ballot won't match the correct hash total because the hash encoding algorithm is secret.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Amended claim 21 includes limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., "providing a device configured to generate a receipt indicating the voting choices of the voter … the device being physically and functionally independent of the electronic voting machine" and "the data indicating the voting choices of the voter, after being stored on the device, being non-alterable by an outside source."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not allege that the mentioned claim limitations are performable in the human mind.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Office fails to recognize, however, that the limitations "the device being physically and functionally independent of the electronic voting machine" and "the data indicating the voting choices of the voter cannot be altered by an outside source" constitute technological improvements. Thus, claim 21 recites additional elements that integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Generating a voting receipt is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Because the "background section further explains that the disclosed system enhances security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions," the claimed invention in Claim 3 of Example 47 was found to reflect this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection because the claims reflect the improvement which is described in the background section.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not proper practice to go and find a particular Example from the Office published material and use the specific arguments from that Example to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter claimed in that particular Example, which in the instant situation it does not. The Office periodically publishes Examples with detailed analyses only to serve as rational and argumentation models to determine eligibility. Each application has to be considered on its own merits. Examples provided by the Office are nothing more than the name suggests: EXAMPLES, that are to be considered or not, as they are neither laws, nor rules, nor regulations.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The present application also describes the solution to the problem of lack of voter confidence in electronic voting machines.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Lack of voter confidence is a social problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Thus, as in Claim 3 of Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the specification of the present application sets forth the need and issue in which the present application provides a solution and an improvement to, in the field of electronic voting technology. Thus, even if the claims include a judicial exception, the claims recite additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, it is not proper practice to go and find a particular Example from the Office published material and use the specific arguments from that Example to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter claimed in that particular Example, which in the instant situation it does not. The Office periodically publishes Examples with detailed analyses only to serve as rational and argumentation models to determine eligibility. Each application has to be considered on its own merits. Examples provided by the Office are nothing more than the name suggests: EXAMPLES, that are to be considered or not, as they are neither laws, nor rules, nor regulations.
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be