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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7,9, 11, 17 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2-5, 8, 12-15, 18 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 12/29/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “The amended claim now implements an automated cross-verification system that compares government-issued identification data with existing account data to detect and verify discrepancies, creating a technical solution to the computer problem of maintaining data accuracy across multiple information sources. The system automatically detects conflicts between government-verified address information from a mobile driver's license and stored account data, then proactively initiates verification processes to resolve data inconsistencies without manual intervention. This represents a specific technological improvement over traditional systems that rely on users to manually update account information when their demographic data changes. Specification at [0001] (page 2/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. An automated cross-verification system that compares government-issued identification data with existing account data to detect and verify discrepancies and/or automatically detects conflicts between government-verified address information from a mobile driver's license and stored account data, then proactively initiates verification processes to resolve data inconsistencies is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
The use of computer system here fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (maintaining data accuracy across multiple information sources) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “The amendments transform the claim from mere data gathering and analysis into an automated verification and notification system that improves computer functionality by maintaining data accuracy across interconnected systems. The claim requires the computer system to perform multiple comparisons across different data sources, the virtual ID from government-issued credentials and the user account database, then automatically trigger verification workflows based on detected discrepancies. This sophisticated coordination between the smart wallet storing government identification, the user account system, and the notification delivery mechanisms represents a practical application that enhances how computer systems maintain accurate user information. Specification at [0015], [0023]-[0025] (page 2/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. Amended claim 1 merely gathers data, analyzes data, determines results, and transmits an advertisement based on the results. Then based on a future result of gathering data, analyzing data, and determining results, it is determined that the person has permanent address associated with the virtual ID that is different from addresses of the user account, it transmits a notification advertising to the user making them aware that the to determine whether or not to provide a permanent address associated with the virtual ID that is different from addresses of the user account so that this information can be updated and future advertisements can be provided based on the updated information. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary the definition of advertising is "the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements. As such, transmitting the notification is advertising because it is calls to the attention o the user that the two address conflict and the amended limitations of the claim recite an advertising activity or behavior. Even if the examiner were to interpret the notification more narrowly than required by the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary, the limitation would still be part of the abstract idea because the purpose of the notification is to update the user's address information so that the invention can provide advertisements in the manner claimed based on the updated address information. As such, the argued limitation are clearly part of the abstract idea itself and recite an advertising activity or behavior. As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained..
As thus, merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content (i.e. notification) based on the results, and transmit the tailored content is not transformation of data. Merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content (i.e. notification) based on the results, and transmit the tailored content is not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Also, since the steps of accessing the user account...; comparing the permanent physical address...; and automatically sending the notification are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. "Additional elements" are defined as those parts of the claim that are not part of the abstract idea itself. However, in the instant case, the argued limitation are part of the abstract idea. Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (coordination between the smart wallet storing government identification, the user account system, and the notification delivery mechanisms that maintain accurate user information) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “Amended claim 1 is analogous to Example 47, Claim 3 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which was found eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Both claims involve systems that detect discrepancies or anomalies by comparing multiple data sources, analyze the results, and automatically take remedial action based on the detected issues. Example 47, Claim 3 detects anomalies in network traffic, determines malicious packets, detects source addresses, and automatically drops malicious packets and blocks future traffic in real time. Similarly, amended claim 1 detects discrepancies between government identification addresses and account addresses, determines address differences, and automatically sends verification notifications to resolve data conflicts. The USPTO found Example 47, Claim 3 eligible because it provided an improvement in network security by automatically detecting network intrusions and taking real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses. The claimed invention reflected improvements in the technical field of network intrusion detection by using information from detection to enhance security through proactive measures. Similarly, amended claim 1 provides an improvement in the technical field of data accuracy and account management by using information from address comparisons to enhance data integrity through proactive verification requests. Both claims go beyond mere data collection and analysis by implementing specific technological processes that automatically remediate detected problems, thereby improving computer functionality in their respective technical fields. Claim 3 of Example 47 was found to be eligible because steps detecting source addresses, dropping malicious packets, and blocking future traffic integrated the abstract idea into a practical application by improving network security technology. Likewise, the steps of accessing a user account, comparing addresses across multiple data sources, determining differences, and automatically sending verification notifications integrate any abstract idea into a practical application by improving data accuracy technology. Both claims reflect technological improvements through automated detection and remediation rather than merely gathering and analyzing data. Reconsideration and allowance of all claims are therefore requested (page 3/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. With regards to Example 47, the applicant's arguments are not convincing because the instant claims bear no similarities to the claim 3 of abstract idea Example 47. In claim 3 of abstract idea example 47, limitations d-f did not fall within any of the abstract idea categories and, as such, were considered "additional elements" under Step 2a, Prong 2. When considering steps d-f in combination, claim 3 recited an improvement rooted in the additional elements of d-f that transformed the abstract idea into a practical application. In contrast, the argued limitation fall withing the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" category because they either recite an advertising activity or are steps performed in order for advertising to be provided to a user. Hence, it is clear that the argued limitations bear no similarities to step d-f in claim 3 of Abstract Idea example 47. If anything, the argued limitation are similar to steps a-c in claim 3 of Abstract Idea Example 47, in that they recite an abstract idea. As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejection have been maintained.
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC § 103, Applicant’s arguments are considered, but they are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
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, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9-10 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claims 11, 16-17, 19-20 are directed to a process (i.e. a method).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ receive a virtual identification (ID) by a smart wallet, wherein the virtual ID comprises a mobile driver's license; determine an interaction process to initiate with a client device ;query the smart wallet to access user information of the virtual ID based on a determined interaction process, wherein the user information comprises a permanent physical address submitted to a government for official identification purposes; track location of the client device over a period of time to generate a location history; analyze the location history to confirm an accuracy of the permanent physical address;obtain a current location of the client device using global positioning data; compare the permanent physical address of the virtual ID with the current location of the client device;determine a digital advertisement based on the permanent physical address rather than the current location when the permanent physical address and the current location differ; and initiate the interaction process using the user information of the virtual ID, wherein initiating the interaction process comprises providing the digital advertisement to the client; access a user account associated with the virtual ID:compare the permanent physical address of the virtual ID with an address of the user account to determine that the address of the user account differs from the permanent physical address of the virtual ID: and automatically send a notification to the client requesting verification of an address change from the address of the user account to the permanent physical address of the virtual ID based on determining a difference. ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “ computer system comprising: one or more processors; non-transitory computer-readable storage media, client device, smart wallet”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “ computer system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable storage media, client device, digital wallet”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 17, 52-57); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receive a virtual identification (ID) by a smart wallet;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claim 11.
The dependent claims 6-7,9-10, 16-17,19-20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of : wherein to initiate the interaction process includes to send a payment card to the permanent physical address ( claims 6 and 16); provide a notification requesting verification of the address of the permanent physical of the virtual ID (claims 7 and 17); provide a notification to the client device, wherein the notification requests input indicating the user information is shareable (claims 9 and 19); receive input restricting access to at least some of the user information ( claims 10 and 20); which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent 1 and 11.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
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 1, 7, 11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vawter, US Pub No: 2008/0048022 A1 in view of Engel et al, US Pub No: 2019/0378147 A1 in view of Hamilton et al, US Pat No : 8,548,910 B1.
Claims 1 and 11,
Vawter discloses:
receive a virtual identification (ID) by a smart wallet, wherein the virtual ID comprises driver’s license (see at least the abstract, paragraphs 14,85-86; abstract (A managed service may include first logic to receive authentication information from a user terminal on behalf of a user, and receive user information on behalf of the user when the user terminal is authenticated via the authentication information. The first logic may send a portion of the user information to a mobile wallet application operating on a mobile terminal related to the user, and may receive updated user information from the mobile terminal, where the updated user information identifies a change to the portion of the user information, the change based on an operation performed via the mobile terminal on behalf of the user); paragraph 14 (the virtual wallet may store electronic representations of driver's license information for the user, bank account information, credit card information, automated teller machine (ATM) card information, medical information, contacts, coupons, electronic keys (e.g., house keys or car keys), etc); paragraph 86 ( the user may enter identifying information and may select a user name and password for use with virtual wallet application 340. Virtual wallet application 340 may establish a virtual wallet account on behalf of the user when the user's identity is valid);
determine an interaction process to initiate with a client device (see at least paragraph 15 (The user may make a purchase using information retrieved from the virtual wallet, such as a shopping list, credit card information, coupons, etc.); paragraph 60 (For example, coupons 470 may include information that allows terminal 110 to receive a discount on goods or services when the coupon information is sent to transaction device 140 during a transaction); paragraph 98 (For example, server 130 may store changes in the preferred menu (if any) in ordering information 425, a receipt for the transaction in receipts 420, information regarding charges to the credit card in credit/debit cards 415 and any coupons received from the fast food restaurant in coupons 470. Server 130 may notify terminal 110 that an account related thereto has been updated using the completed transaction information);
query the smart wallet to access user information of the virtual ID based on a determined interaction process, wherein the user information comprises a permanent physical address submitted to a government for official identification purposes (see at least paragraphs 79-84; paragraph 84 and Fig 7 with the associated text (User information (user permanent address 755) may include information maintained on behalf of a user by a department of motor vehicles identified by department name 745. Verify button 760 may include information or code that allows a user to verify that his/her information downloaded from the department of motor vehicles is correct. For example, selecting “correct” for verify button 760 may store user information 755 on server 130 in virtual wallet information 357 (e.g., identification information 405) and selecting “incorrect” may send the user to a customer support representative at the department of motor vehicles so that the incorrect information can be corrected before the information is downloaded to server 130);
initiate the interaction process with the client device using the user information of the virtual ID, wherein initiating the interaction process comprises providing the digital advertisement to the client device (see at least paragraphs 15, 98-99; paragraph 15 (the user may make a purchase using information retrieved from the virtual wallet, such as a shopping list, credit card information, coupons, etc); paragraph 98 (For example, server 130 may store changes in the preferred menu (if any) in ordering information 425, a receipt for the transaction in receipts 420, information regarding charges to the credit card in credit/debit cards 415 and any coupons received from the fast food restaurant in coupons 470. Server 130 may notify terminal 110 that an account related thereto has been updated using the completed transaction information);
Vawter does not specifically disclose, but Engel however discloses :
track location of the client device over a period of time to generate a location history (see at least paragraph 56 ( in some embodiments, the process, at step 506, may receive one or more frequent destination addresses/places of interest associated with a consumer. For example, in one embodiment, a user may enter a user's work address, a school's address, one or more friends' or relatives' addresses, the address of a local gym, and/or the address of a grocery store. In one embodiment, the process determines the travel route information from the user's home location to the one or more frequent destination addresses and retrieves advertising content associated with businesses along the determined travel routes); paragraph 42 ( Each of the locations and routes may be used to target advertising to the in-home advertising device 200 by merchants that happen to have locations at such locations or along such routes. Routes can be combined with day of the week, date of the month, or time of day logic to present advertisement via in-home advertising device 200, particularly when combined with knowledge obtained from a calendar or appointment application);
analyze the location history to confirm an accuracy of the permanent physical address;
obtain a current location of the client device using global positioning data:
See at least paragraph 20 (an in-home advertising device is defined as an electronic device that is utilized only within a home environment, such as, residential location 180, for the purpose of presenting advertisements/offers to a consumer. In-home advertising device 200 may be placed within any location within residential location 180); paragraph 49 (The process, at step 408, authenticates the device using data received as part of the connection requests. For instance, in one embodiment, the process determines the physical location of the in-home advertising device using cellular triangulation, GPS, and/or IP address to verify that the in-home advertising device is located in the correct physical location associated with the address of the registered consumer);
compare the permanent physical address of the virtual ID with the current location of the client device; determine a digital advertisement based on the permanent physical address rather than the current location of the client device when the permanent physical address and the current location differ (See at least paragraph 28 (advertising device server 130 may identify the user associated with the transmitting in-home advertising device 200 (e.g., using subscriber information associated with in-home advertising device 200), retrieve payment information associated with the identified user (e.g., stored credit card information), verify the transaction (e.g., the user must enter a pin/password using in-home advertising device 200), and place the order with a vendor (e.g., using a web site hosted by Web server 160)); paragraph 50 (an in-home advertising device may be utilized in more than one location. For example, if a consumer moves and transfers residential addresses, the new location of the in-home advertising device may be determined using cellular triangulation, GPS, or IP address. In such an embodiment, in-home advertising device may itself automatically communicate its new location to a server such as advertising device server 130. Advertising device server 130 may then alter the advertisements sent to the consumer in response to the new geographic location associated with the home location of the in-home advertising device. In one embodiment, in-home advertising device may determine its new location each time it is powered on, when a “new home location” or similar option is selected by a user, or after a material change in location is detected. In a similar manner, in-home advertising device may be moved to a vacation home, office, or other location and still operate without having to re-register for the advertising service);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Vawter’s of virtual wallet including determining location application with the teaching of Engel’s location hstory information with the motivation of providing in-time location information as taught by Engel over that of Vawter.
The combination of Vawter/Engel does not specifically disclose, but Hamilton however discloses:
access a user account: compare permanent physical address with an address of the user account to determine that the address of a user account differs from the permanent physical address: and automatically send a notification to the client device requesting verification of an address change from the address of the user account to the permanent physical address based on determining a difference (see at least column 6, lines 32-50 (Notification engine 303 compares account information from data extract feeds 303 with processing information from thresholds database 307, status codes database 309, National Change of Address (NCOA) database 311, and high risk zip code database 313 to determine if the address change request is possibly fraudulent. (Processing by notification engine 301 is further discussed with FIGS. 4-12.) If so, notification engine 301 generates a notification to the holder of the account based on the telephone number of record through phone delivery 317 and/or based on the address of record through letter delivery 315. With some embodiments, the notification may be sent to the e-mail address of record. With some embodiments, notification engine 301 may first attempt to contact the customer to the telephone number of record. If the call is unsuccessful, notification engine 301 may initiate the mailing of a post card or letter to the customer at the address of record. Other embodiments may execute different notification strategies, e.g., both calling the customer as well as mailing a notification to the customer ; column 8, lines 35-46 and Fig 8 with the associated text (NCOA processing 603 provides inputs 805 (that may include the customer name and old address) to VeriMove.TM. software 807 (available from Pitney Bowes Business) to check customer records against the USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) database (NCOALink.RTM.). With some embodiments, module 803 de-duplicates multiple address change records if the customer has moved multiple times and uses the latest address change for accessing the NCOA database);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Vawter’s / Engel virtual wallet historical location information with the teaching of Hamilton’s address change notification with the motivation of keeping accurate user’s profile information and hence targeting consumers more accurately and in efficiently manner as taught by Hamilton over that of Vawter’s / Engel
Claims 7 and 17:
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton discloses the limitations as shown above;
Vawter further discloses:
provide another notification requesting verification of the address of the virtual ID (see at least paragraph 82 and fig 7 with the associated text (, window 740 may open when a user selects department of motor vehicles 710. Window 740 may allow the user to access, enter, or upload/download his/her identification information as the information relates to a department of motor vehicles (e.g., a state department of motor vehicles). In one implementation, window 740 may include department name 745, import information button 750, user information 755, and a verify button 760);
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vawter, US Pub No: 2008/0048022 A1 in view of in view of Engel et al, US Pub no: 2019/0378147 A1 in view of Hamilton et al, US Pat No : 8,548,910 B1 and further in view of Hurry, US Pub No: 2016/0140549 A1.
Claims 6 and 16:
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton discloses the limitations as shown above;
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton does not specifically disclose, but Hurry however discloses:
wherein to initiate the interaction process includes to send a payment card to the address (see at least paragraph 84 (The approved media device payment account application indication of message 274 includes a user 208 mailing address as well as additional user 208 payment account information to allow smart card personalization service server 278 to prompt a mailing of a generated smart card with the user 208 payment account information to user 208);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Vawter’s / Engel/ Hamilton virtual wallet historical location information with the teaching of Hurry’s module ID based targeted marketing with the motivation to deliver personalization payment card service to consumers as taught by Harry over that Vawter’s / Engel/ Hamilton .
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Vawter, US Pub No: 2008/0048022 A1 in view of Engel et al, US Pub no: 2019/0378147 A1 in view of Hamilton et al, US Pat No : 8,548,910 B1 and further in view of in view of Pyhalammi et al, US Pub No:2008/0010133 A1.
Claims 9 -10 and 19-20:
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton discloses the limitations as shown above.
The combination of Vawter/ Engel/ Hamilton does not specifically disclose, but Pyhalammi however discloses:
provide a notification to the client device, wherein another notification requests input indicating the user information is shareable;
receive input restricting access to at least some of the user information ;
See at least paragraph 40 (server 300 may control and restrict the distribution of private user information to only user authorized entities (sharing with other entities). Various restrictions and permissions may be specified user upon registering with server 300 or an underlying system. According to aspects, server 300 may be restricted from distributing any information related to a user unless given express permission);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teaching of Vawter’s / Engel/ Hamilton virtual wallet historical location information with the teaching of Pyhalammi’s limiting access to user’s information with the motivation of protection user’s privacy information as taught by Pyhalammi over that of Vawter’s / Engel/ Hamilton.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Clark et al, US Pub No: 2023/0177635 A1, system, method and computer program product for assessing risk of identity theft.
Mithal et al, US Pub No:2009/0257591 A1,teaches facilitating search, selection, preview offering for sale, distribution and/or sale of digital content and enhancing the security thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622