DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 5, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-22 and 24 are pending.
Claims 1, 9,10,12,17,18 and 19 are amended.
Response to Remarks:
Regarding 103:
The examiner has updated the search and finds the allowable subject matter found in the Non-Final Office Action dated March 3, 2025 to still be applicable. Thus, the indicia of allowable subject matter is maintained.
Regarding 101:
The Applicant asserts that a technological improvement exists within the amended claims. The examiner is not persuaded for the following rationale:
The Mobile Device As Computer Aid:
The mobile device is not an integral component of the claim limitations. The claims, as amended, are emphasizing the workflow coordinator, namely a person, to follow certain steps/tasks in the workflow. For example, the claim limitations elements of, associating… workflow instance, then obtaining…information, then orchestrating…the device trust score, then determining to halt or advance the workflow and ultimately to verify and validate the digital image, are all done by the workflow coordinator. The mobile application is merely part of the integration platform that initiates the workflow. However, the steps/tasks for the claims are performed by the coordinator. In such an instance, the MPEP guidelines of MPEP 2103.05 (III) ( C) (3), wherein the MPEP does not allow for using the “computer” (i.e. mobile device) to perform an abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Not a Practical Application
The Applicant asserts that the claims as amended are a technical solution to technical problems by providing a workflow integration platform that manages a state of workflow instance “that is initiated by a user through a mobile application and coordinates multiple services throughout execution of the workflow instance…” The examiner is not persuaded. Again, as discussed above the mobile device as claimed does not coordinate multiple services throughout the execution of the workflow, but the workflow coordinator does so using the mobile device. Thus, the mobile device is merely a computer aid in the invention’s abstract idea. Moreover, the improvement is to the abstract idea of organizing human activity not the functionality of the computing device, here the mobile device.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-22 and 24 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I. Identify the Abstract Ideas
Independent claims 1 and 17, when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea of an organizing human activity.
In the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank International, et al. the court outlined several examples of abstract ideas including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical relationships. However, this list merely presents examples of abstract ideas and is not meant to limit abstract ideas to these four categories.
Further, specifically, claims 1-22 and 24 are directed to the abstract idea of an organizing human activity. The limitations may encompass, among other things, limitations that can be accomplished by using the workflow coordinator, which is an API per the Specification, to verify the identity of document verification.
Here, the limitations of claim 1, similarly claim 17 may be accomplished by a person/human at the API. Such as, “…associating, by the workflow coordinator, the workflow instance with an identifier…; obtaining…user contact information and client device information; orchestrating, by the workflow coordinator, provision of a device trust score from the device reputation service using the first micro service to provide user contact information and client device information to the device reputation service: determining, by the workflow coordinator advance the state of the workflow instance based on the identifier and the device trust score;; orchestrating, by the workflow coordinator, provision of an identity document verification score from the identity document verification service using the second micro service; obtaining, at the workflow integration platform, a final user assessment score based on the identity document verification score, the user assessment score corresponding to completion of the workflow instance based on the identifier,” are all limitations that maybe accomplished with a workflow by organizing human activity.
Moreover, the Examiner further asserts that dependent claims of 2-16 and 18-22 and 24 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under the Alice framework, claims 1 and 17 do not include any limitations amounting to
significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claims 1 and 17 do include various
elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include “…client device…memory…computer program instructions…user device…workflow integration platform…platform database…mobile device…integration software development kit…application programming interface…mobile application…digital image…”
Examiner submits that the elements such as, memory, processor, computer program instructions, databases., user interface, and computing system are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions. Other elements, such as, workflow integration platform and payment and identity application are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As a result, these computing elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Once these limitations were discounted from the claims as non-indicative indication integration into a practical application all that remained was the abstract principle, which is not enough. These limitations do not provide sufficient additional features or limit the abstract concept in a meaningful way. As a result, claims 1 and 17 do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite various limitation elements, such as, “…software development kit…bank server…digital wallet…digital card…mobile application…banking application…” which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The use of generic computer elements, such as the “mobile application…banking application…bank server”, do not transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. These limitation elements only add generic computer components to otherwise-ineligible claims.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Having examined each of the limitations of the claimed invention — individually and collectively — Applicant’s additional elements perform routine operations, including those identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. Viewed as a whole, these additional elements (recited in claims with a judicial exception) do not qualify as significantly more than a claimed judicial exception (e.g., the claims do not: (1) include improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) include improvements to the functioning of a claimed computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application; or (6) present other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see the December 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, p. 74624)). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623