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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on August 6, 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 12 were amended.
Claim(s) 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that the claimed invention recited limitations that cannot be performed in the human mind or that merely organize human activity. Applicant further asserted that the limitations impose meaningful limits that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Examiner’s 101 rejection does not rely on a finding that any limitations in Applicant’s claimed invention can be performed in the human mind, thereby making the argument moot. Applicant’s claimed invention merely organizes human activity because the recited apparatus and method for verifying identity data of a person before executing a transaction is an example of a fundamental economic practice. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-12 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent apparatus claim 11 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1 and product Claim 12. Claim 11 recites the following limitations:
[An apparatus for electronically verifying identity data of a customer, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and]
[at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured:]
to issue an account for the person based on unverified identity data of the person;
to receive [from a remote computer system] a request to verify an identity of the person associated with the account during an electronic transaction;
to select a random portion of identity data from a plurality of identity data portions associated with an identification document of the person;
to transmit, [to the remote computer system,] a prompt requesting the random portion of identity data;
to receive the random portion of identity data provided by the identification document of the person;
to update an identity profile of the person associated with the account by combining the received portion of identity data with different portions of identity data previously received [from different remote computer systems] at different geographic locations that requested [the apparatus] to verify the identity of the person associated with the account;
to compare the identity profile of the person to the unverified identity data of the person; and
to confirm the identity of the person associated with the account when no discrepancy between the identity profile of the person and the unverified identity data of the person has been found; and
to approve the electronic transaction in response to confirming the identity by transmitting, [to the remote computer system], an instruction that causes the remote computer system to complete the electronic transaction using the account.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic principle or practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor, remote computer system, apparatus, and memory in Claim 11 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 1 and 12 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a processor and memory. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-10 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 2-10 are not patent-eligible.
Examiner’s Statement of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Hammad (US 2008/0319889), Kraft (US 2010/0161816), Song (US 2010/0325026), Taylor (US 2006/0101508), Fierer (US 2006/0010487), Love (US 2009/0313069) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Hammad teaches restricting access to compromised account information. Kraft teaches a system for providing various features for facilitating the management of data used for facilitating trust in otherwise anonymous transactions. Song teaches an anti-crimes financial network. Taylor teaches an electronic system provided to confirm the identity of an individual or customer. Fierer teaches a system and method of verifying personal identities. Love teaches systems and methods disclosed for verifying customer identifications. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious limitations of selecting, by the central computer system, a random portion of identity data from a plurality of identity data portions associated with an identification document of the person; transmitting, from the central computer system to the remote computer system, a prompt requesting the random portion of identity data; receiving, at the central computer system from the remote computer system, the random portion of identity data provided by the identification document of the person; updating, at the central computer system, an identity profile of the person associated with the account by combining the received portion of identity data with different portions of identity data previously received from different remote computer systems at different geographic locations that requested the central computer system to verify the identity of the person associated with the account; comparing, at the central computer system, the identity profile of the person to the unverified identity data of the person; confirming, by the central computer system, the identity of the person associated with the account when no discrepancy between the identity profile of the person and the unverified identity data of the person has been found; and approving the electronic transaction in response to confirming the identity by transmitting, from the central computer system to the remote computer system, an instruction that causes the remote computer system to complete the electronic transaction using the account, as described by the allowed claims.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Fierer (US 20060010487) discloses a system and method of verifying personal identities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
September 10, 2026
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights