DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 29 December 2025. Claims 2-3, 5-21 have been examined.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following are prior art references made of record but not currently relied upon:
20070220009
Pars. 7-11
Verification of the identity of the owner or provider of the credentials
20020083008
Pars. 10-13, 15
Identity verification for e-transactions
20070278285
Pars. 43-50
Ensuring the identity, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of collected information
20110276484
Pars. 8-11
Verification based on locations and identification card photo
20150088709
Pars. 38-39
Location verification based on predefined distance from location extracted from bill
20050125295
Par. 253
“…location-related and/or proximity-based information that are found to be useful in enhancing risk assessment for a proposed check-cashing transaction”
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 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 2-3, 5-11, 13-14, 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over V. Neuwirth, Pub. No.: US 20140074713 A1, hereinafter Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman et al., Pub. No.: US 20080033637 A1, hereinafter Kuhlman and further in view of Leonard et al., US 20140049653 A1, hereinafter Leonard.
As per claim 2, Neuwirth discloses A method for sharing verification information, comprising: at one or more devices with one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors:
obtaining a document associated with a user (pars. 68, 69, 72, 73);
extracting, by the one or more processors, information from the document, wherein the extracted information includes extracted location information associated with the user (pars. 68, 69, 72, 73);
determining a current location of a client device associated with the user (see above cited pars. including at least pars. 73, 74);
determining […] the current location of the client device matches the extracted location information associated with the user (see at least pars. 69, 73-74).
Neuwirth does not expressly disclose determining a degree to which the locations match. However, Kuhlman in the related field of endeavor of identity verification discloses this in pars. 9, 19.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Kuhlman’s teaching would have allowed Neuwirth to determine a degree to which a current location of a user matches with a known location information (such as Neuwirth’s extracted location information) in order to arrive at a quantified match score that conveys information pertinent to identity verification at multiple levels – which further supports Neuwirth’s authenticity strength assessment and determination of confidence levels as disclosed in par. 69.
generating a verification rating based on the degree to which the current location of the client device matches the extracted location information associated with the user (Neuwirth see pars. cited above including at least par. 69 which discloses to assess a strength of the authenticity (i.e. a verification rating) and level of confidence (i.e. a verification rating), pars. 72-79 disclose verification processes; and Kuhlman pars. 9, 19 discloses based on the degree as mapped above);
Neuwirth as modified does not expressly disclose generating, by the one or more processors, one or more encrypted containers at the client device to store the verification rating and extracted information from the document. However, Leonard in the related field of endeavor of data verification discloses this; pars. 3-4, 27, 31, 40, 63-64 disclose generating encrypted containers that store document extracted information (wherein “the more different types of metadata captured, the greater the confidence…”) along with data indicating that information has not been tampered with which corresponds to Neuwirth’s above-mentioned authenticity strength (verification rating) and confidence level (verification rating)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Leonard would have allowed the combination to create encrypted content that includes location information and data indicating that information has not been tampered, at the client device “in order to authenticate the source of the images, and enable detection that the document has been tampered with.” (Leonard, par. 9).
facilitating sending of the information extracted from the document, and the verification rating to a server system remote from the client device (Neuwirth par. 69, 83, 87 discloses that the system is a remote system that receives the data including the captured picture file content, associated extracted metadata , authenticity strength/confidence level (verification rating), all of this being obtained from a user’s device as per par. 68, and returned to server system as per par. 70 and/or to a third party merchant system as indicated in pars. 69, 89-96, and also, Kuhlman par. 19 discloses a degree of location match based quantified match score verification method (i.e. verification rating) that is outputted/sent for use by other applications).
As per claim 3, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising: obtaining verification information corroborating identity information of the user; and extracting identity information from the document, wherein the verification rating is based at least in part on a degree of match between the identity information of the user and the extracted identity information (see rejection of claim 1 for the obtaining and extracting as claimed including at least Kuhlman pars. 9 and 19 and Neuwirth pars. 69-75, 81).
As per claim 5, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the verification rating comprises a plurality of verification ratings (Neuwirth see pars. cited above including at least par. 69 which discloses to assess a strength of the authenticity (i.e. a first verification rating) and level of confidence (i.e. a second verification rating), pars. 72-79 disclose (multiple more) verification processes; and Kuhlman pars. 18-26 disclose multiple additional verification ratings).
As per claim 6, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses the method of claim 5, generating a composite verification rating for the document, wherein the composite verification rating is based at least partially on each of the plurality of verification ratings (see rejection of claim 5).
As per claim 7, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising, at the client device: obtaining one or more additional documents; and for each respective one of the one or more additional documents: extracting data from the respective document; generating at least one respective verification rating for the respective document; and sending the respective document, the data extracted from the respective document, and the at least one respective verification rating to the server system (see rejection of claim 2 as well as Neuwirth, par. 60, 70-75 and Kuhlman pars. 9, 19 all of which disclose repeating the claimed steps).
As per claim 8, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 7, further comprising, at the client device: generating a user score for a user account of the user based at least in part on: the verification rating for the document; and the at least one respective verification rating for each of the one or more additional documents (see at least at least Kuhlman, pars. 11, 19).
As per claim 9, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising receiving, at the client device, a request for authorization to release the information to a third party, wherein the request for authorization includes a request for information associated with a user account associated with a user account of the user and identifies one or more distinct information items (Neuwirth discloses the claimed receiving request for authorization to release the information to a third party as claimed in at least pars. 69, 89-96).
As per claim 10, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the request for information associated with the user account specifies one or more requested access limits for the information (Neuwirth, at least pars. 69, 89-96).
As per claim 11, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the authorization to release the information to the third party includes one or more access limits, specified by the user, for the information (Neuwirth, at least pars. 69, 89-96).
As per claim 13, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2, wherein extracting the information from the document includes extracting biometric data from a photograph contained in the document (Neuwirth pars. 68-73).
As per claim 14, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2, wherein extracting the information from the document includes extracting a signature from a photograph contained in the document (Neuwirth pars. 62-79).
As per claim 17, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2, wherein generating the verification rating includes: capturing a photograph of a user; extracting a reference photograph from the document; extracting biometric information from the photograph of the user; extracting biometric information from the reference photograph; and generating the verification rating based at least in part on a degree of match between the biometric information from the photograph of the user and the biometric information from the reference photograph (see Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman as cited in the rejection of claim 2 including Neuwirth pars. 68, 78, 81, 87 and Khulman, pars. 1, 9, 12, 21).
As per claim 20, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the extracted information includes an address, and wherein generating one verification rating includes: determining a current location of the client device; comparing the current location of the client device with the address; and generating the one verification rating based at least in part on a proximity of the address to the current location of the client device (see Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman as cited in the rejection of claim 2 including Neuwirth pars. 69, 72-74).
As per claim 21, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 20, further comprising generating the verification rating based at least in part on whether the address falls within a predetermined area surrounding the current location of the client device (see Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman as cited in the rejection of claim 2 including Neuwirth pars. 69, 72-74).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuwirth as modified above and further in view of M. Wall, Pub. No.: US 20020017977 A1, hereinafter Wall.
As per claim 12, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 11. The combination does not expressly disclose, however Wall in the related field of endeavor of security and access control discloses wherein the one or more access limits are selected from the group consisting of: a limit on a number of times that the third party may access the information: and a limit on a duration in which the third party may access the information (Wall, par. 31, 105). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Wall’s teaching would have allowed the combination to specify permissible limits and to provide a method for assuring that a system, device or product will only operate or be useful within the geographical area designated for its use (Wall, pars. 13, 105).
Claims 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuwirth as modified above and further in view of Chen et al., Pub. No.: US 20080300887 A1, hereinafter Chen.
As per claim 15, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2 The combination does not expressly disclose, however Chen in the related field of endeavor of data validation discloses further comprising, at the client device: prior to generating the verification rating for the document: identifying, from the information extracted from the document, an expiration date of the document (Chen, par. 22); and determining that the expiration date of the document is after a current date (Chen, par. 22). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Chen’s teaching would have allowed the combination to inspect a document with respect to data printed on the document including expiration and issue date in order to enforce validation and verification rules.
As per claim 16, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2. The combination does not expressly disclose, however Chen in the related field of endeavor of data validation discloses further comprising, at the client device; prior to generating the verification rating for the document: identifying, from the information extracted from the document, an issue date associated with the document (Chen, par. 22); and determining that the issue date associated with the document is within a predetermined recency window, wherein the predetermined recency window is determined in accordance with a current date (Chen, par. 22). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Chen’s teaching would have allowed the combination to inspect a document with respect to data printed on the document including expiration and issue date in order to enforce validation and verification rules.
Claims 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuwirth as modified above and further in view of Monk et al., Pub. No.: US 20030099379 A1, hereinafter Monk.
As per claim 18, Neuwirth in view of Kuhlman and Leonard discloses The method of claim 2. The combination does not expressly disclose, however Monk in the related field of endeavor of Monk discloses wherein generating the verification rating includes: capturing a photograph of the document, wherein the document includes a hologram, and the document is illuminated by one of infrared or ultraviolet radiation (Monk, pars. 26-35); analyzing the hologram (Monk, pars. 26-35); and generating the verification rating based at least in part on a quality and/or a content of the hologram (Monk, pars. 26-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Monk’s teaching would have allowed the combination to “automatically identifying and validating a document, for validating the identity of a bearer of a document, for verifying that the bearer has authorization to participate in an activity represented by the document, and for comparing information on the document against information databases to determine if there are known concerns about the document or its bearer” (Monk, abstract) and “To make it harder to alter or counterfeit documents … new measures have included the use of chemical taggants to produce different papers, threads, and types of inks to imprint information. These taggants show up differently under lights of different color, including invisible light such as ultraviolet and infrared. These taggants may also be magnetic or have other properties that are not apparent, but which are detectable when using the proper excitation source and sensor” (Monk, par. 29).
As per claim 19, Neuwirth as modified discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising, prior to generating the verification rating, prompting the user to capture the photograph of the document while illuminating the document with one of infrared or ultraviolet radiation, including providing instructions to the user regarding suitable sources of infrared or ultraviolet radiation (Monk, pars. 26-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Monk’s teaching would have allowed the combination to “automatically identifying and validating a document, for validating the identity of a bearer of a document, for verifying that the bearer has authorization to participate in an activity represented by the document, and for comparing information on the document against information databases to determine if there are known concerns about the document or its bearer” (Monk, abstract) and “To make it harder to alter or counterfeit documents … new measures have included the use of chemical taggants to produce different papers, threads, and types of inks to imprint information. These taggants show up differently under lights of different color, including invisible light such as ultraviolet and infrared. These taggants may also be magnetic or have other properties that are not apparent, but which are detectable when using the proper excitation source and sensor” (Monk, par. 29).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered. Leonard et al., US 20140049653 A1 has been applied as a new reference in response to claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154