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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-14, 15 -22, 24-25, 27-29 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11244033. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application 18780217
US Patent 11244033
Claim 1. A method for remotely verifying a non-resident alien’s identity, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien;
providing, by the one or more processors, a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID);
receiving, by the one or more processors, the solicited information;
querying, by the one or more processors, one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data; and
verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing.
Claim 1. A method for remotely verifying a non-resident alien's identity, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien;
providing, by the one or more processors, a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID), and other information not shown on the foreign government ID;
receiving, by the one or more processors, the solicited information;
querying, by the one or more processors, one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data; and
verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the page flow enables the non-resident alien to provide a photo of the foreign government ID.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the page flow enables the non- resident alien to provide a photo of the foreign government ID.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the page flow enables the non-resident alien to capture the photo of the foreign government ID by manipulating a camera device of the user device.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the page flow enables the non- resident alien to upload the photo of the foreign government ID.
4. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein the page flow enables the non- resident alien to capture the photo of the foreign government ID by manipulating a camera device of the user device.
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, the photo of the foreign government ID; and extracting, by the one or more processors, at least one of the identification information from the photo of the foreign government ID using optical character recognition.
5. The method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, the photo of the foreign government ID; and extracting, by the one or more processors, at least one of the identification information from the photo of the foreign government ID using optical character recognition.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more domestic governmental data stores; validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores; and generating, by the one or more processors, a validation score corresponding to a risk probability associated with the non-resident alien, the validation score comprising a first score component and a second score component.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more domestic governmental data stores; validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores; and generating, by the one or more processors, a validation score corresponding to a risk probability associated with the non-resident alien, the validation score comprising a first score component and a second score component.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores and the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores are performed, by the one or more processors, concurrently.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores and the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores are performed, by the one or more processors, concurrently.
7. The method of claim 5, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more domestic governmental data stores based on the solicited information to identify domestic data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the domestic data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the domestic data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a first validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more domestic governmental data stores based on the solicited information to identify domestic data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the domestic data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the domestic data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a first validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more watch-list data stores based on the solicited information to identify watch-list data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the watch-list data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the watch-list data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a second validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more watch-list data stores based on the solicited information to identify watch-list data corresponding to the non- resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the watch-list data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the watch-list data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a second validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: comparing, by the one or more processors, the first validation score with a first threshold value to determine the first score component of the validation score; comparing, by the one or more processors, the second validation score with a second threshold value to determine the second score component of the validation score; determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the first score component and the second score component indicates a passing score; and assigning, by the one or more processors, a status to an application associated with the non-resident alien based on the first score component and the second score component, wherein the application is automatically approved, by the one or more processors, in response to both the first score component and the second score component indicating the passing score, and wherein the application is flagged, by the one or more processors, in a pending state for further review in response to at least one of the first score component and the second score component indicating a failing score.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising: comparing, by the one or more processors, the first validation score with a first threshold value to determine the first score component of the validation score; comparing, by the one or more processors, the second validation score with a second threshold value to determine the second score component of the validation score; determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the first score component and the second score component indicates a passing score; and assigning, by the one or more processors, a status to an application associated with the non-resident alien based on the first score component and the second score component, wherein the application is automatically approved, by the one or more processors, in response to both the first score component and the second score component indicating the passing score, and wherein the application is flagged, by the one or more processors, in a pending state for further review in response to at least one of the first score component and the second score component indicating a failing score.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the foreign government ID is a local foreign government ID.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the foreign government ID is a local foreign government ID.
11. A system for remotely verifying a non-resident alien’s identity, the system comprising: one or more processors; and memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien; provide a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID); receive the solicited information; query one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID; compare the solicited information with the foreign data; and verify an identity of the non-resident alien based on the compare.
13. A system for remotely verifying a non-resident alien's identity, the system comprising: one or more processors; and memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien; provide a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non- resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID), and other information not shown on the foreign government ID; receive the solicited information; query one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID; compare the solicited information with the foreign data; and verify an identity of the non-resident alien based on the compare.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-11, and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11144619. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is substantially similar to the U.S. Patent 11144619.
Instant Application 18780217
US Patent 11144619
Claim 1. A method for remotely verifying a non-resident alien’s identity, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien;
providing, by the one or more processors, a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID);
receiving, by the one or more processors, the solicited information;
querying, by the one or more processors, one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data; and
verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing.
A method for remotely verifying a non-resident alien's identity, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien; analyzing, by the one or more processors, the request to determine whether the user device is compromised; determining, by the one or more processors, that the user device is not compromised; in response to determining that the user device is not compromised,
providing, by the one or more processors, a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a local foreign government identification document (ID), and other information not shown on the local foreign government ID;
receiving, by the one or more processors, the solicited information from the user device;
querying, by the one or more processors, one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on a unique an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on associated with the local foreign government ID;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data; and
verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing,
wherein the verifying comprises determining, by the one or more processors, that at least one of the other information not shown on the local foreign government ID matches the foreign data.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more domestic governmental data stores; validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores; and generating, by the one or more processors, a validation score corresponding to a risk probability associated with the non-resident alien, the validation score comprising a first score component and a second score component.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more domestic governmental data stores; validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores; and generating, by the one or more processors, a validation score corresponding to a risk probability associated with the non-resident alien, the validation score comprising a first score component and a second score component.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores and the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores are performed, by the one or more processors, concurrently.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores and the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores are performed, by the one or more processors, concurrently.
7. The method of claim 5, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more domestic governmental data stores based on the solicited information to identify domestic data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the domestic data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the domestic data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a first validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more domestic governmental data stores based on the solicited information to identify domestic data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the domestic data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the domestic data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a first validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more watch-list data stores based on the solicited information to identify watch-list data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the watch-list data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the watch-list data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a second validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more watch-list data stores based on the solicited information to identify watch-list data corresponding to the non- resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the watch-list data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the watch-list data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a second validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: comparing, by the one or more processors, the first validation score with a first threshold value to determine the first score component of the validation score; comparing, by the one or more processors, the second validation score with a second threshold value to determine the second score component of the validation score; determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the first score component and the second score component indicates a passing score; and assigning, by the one or more processors, a status to an application associated with the non-resident alien based on the first score component and the second score component, wherein the application is automatically approved, by the one or more processors, in response to both the first score component and the second score component indicating the passing score, and wherein the application is flagged, by the one or more processors, in a pending state for further review in response to at least one of the first score component and the second score component indicating a failing score.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising: comparing, by the one or more processors, the first validation score with a first threshold value to determine the first score component of the validation score; comparing, by the one or more processors, the second validation score with a second threshold value to determine the second score component of the validation score; determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the first score component and the second score component indicates a passing score; and assigning, by the one or more processors, a status to an application associated with the non-resident alien based on the first score component and the second score component, wherein the application is automatically approved, by the one or more processors, in response to both the first score component and the second score component indicating the passing score, and wherein the application is flagged, by the one or more processors, in a pending state for further review in response to at least one of the first score component and the second score component indicating a failing score.
11. A system for remotely verifying a non-resident alien’s identity, the system comprising: one or more processors; and memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien;
provide a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID);
receive the solicited information;
query one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID;
compare the solicited information with the foreign data; and
verify an identity of the non-resident alien based on the compare.
13. A system for remotely verifying a non-resident alien's identity, the system comprising: one or more processors; and memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien; analyze the request to determine whether the user device is compromised; determine that the user device is not compromised; in response to determining that the user device is not compromised,
provide a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a local foreign government identification document (ID), and other information not shown on the local foreign government ID;
receive the solicited information from the user device;
query one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on a unique an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on associated with the local foreign government ID;
compare the solicited information with the foreign data; and
verify an identity of the non-resident alien based on the compare, wherein the verifying comprises determining that at least one of the other information not shown on the local foreign government ID matches the foreign data.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12045323. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is substantially similar to the U.S. Patent 12045323.
Instant Application 18780217
US Patent 12045323
Claim 1. A method for remotely verifying a non-resident alien’s identity, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien;
providing, by the one or more processors, a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID);
receiving, by the one or more processors, the solicited information;
querying, by the one or more processors, one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data; and
verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing.
1. A method for remotely verifying a non-resident alien's identity, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien; analyzing, by the one or more processors, the request to determine whether the user device is compromised; determining, by the one or more processors, that the user device is not compromised; in response to determining that the user device is not compromised,
providing, by the one or more processors, a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a local foreign government identification document (ID), and other information not shown on the local foreign government ID;
receiving, by the one or more processors, the solicited information;
querying, by the one or more processors, one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the local foreign government ID;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data; and
verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing,
wherein the verifying comprises determining, by the one or more processors, that at least one of the other information not shown on the local foreign government ID matches the foreign data; and validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more domestic governmental data stores or against one or more watch-list data stores
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more domestic governmental data stores; validating, by the one or more processors, the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores; and generating, by the one or more processors, a validation score corresponding to a risk probability associated with the non-resident alien, the validation score comprising a first score component and a second score component.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating, by the one or more processors, a validation score corresponding to a risk probability associated with the non- resident alien, the validation score comprising a first score component and a second score component.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores and the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores are performed, by the one or more processors, concurrently.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores and the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores are both performed by the one or more processors concurrently.
7. The method of claim 5, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more domestic governmental data stores based on the solicited information to identify domestic data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the domestic data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the domestic data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a first validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more domestic governmental data stores based on the solicited information to identify domestic data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the domestic data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the domestic data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a first validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non- resident alien.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more watch-list data stores based on the solicited information to identify watch-list data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the watch-list data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the watch-list data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a second validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors, one or more watch-list data stores based on the solicited information to identify watch-list data corresponding to the non-resident alien; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the watch- list data; identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more names associated with the watch-list data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculating, by the one or more processors, a second validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non- resident alien.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: comparing, by the one or more processors, the first validation score with a first threshold value to determine the first score component of the validation score; comparing, by the one or more processors, the second validation score with a second threshold value to determine the second score component of the validation score; determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the first score component and the second score component indicates a passing score; and assigning, by the one or more processors, a status to an application associated with the non-resident alien based on the first score component and the second score component, wherein the application is automatically approved, by the one or more processors, in response to both the first score component and the second score component indicating the passing score, and wherein the application is flagged, by the one or more processors, in a pending state for further review in response to at least one of the first score component and the second score component indicating a failing score.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising: comparing, by the one or more processors, the first validation score with a first threshold value to determine the first score component of the validation score; comparing, by the one or more processors, the second validation score with a second threshold value to determine the second score component of the validation score; determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the first score component and the second score component indicates a passing score; and assigning, by the one or more processors, a status to an application associated with the non-resident alien based on the first score component and the second score component, wherein the application is automatically approved, by the one or more processors, in response to both the first score component and the second score component indicating the passing score, and wherein the application is flagged, by the one or more processors, in a pending state for further review in response to at least one of the first score component and the second score component indicating a failing score.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recite(s) “querying, by one or more processors, one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien…, comparing, by one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data, and verifying, by one or more processor, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing”. Claim 11 recites “query one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID; compare the solicited information with the foreign data; and verify an identity of the non-resident alien based on the compare”.
The limitations recited above pertaining to the computer implemented method of remotely verifying a non-resident alien identity, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations being an abstract idea that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus other than reciting the generate computer components (one or more processors and memory) nothing in the claims elements precludes the step from practically being performed by a human using pencil and paper. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind, or by a human using pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental processing grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The independent claims recites additional elements of “receive a request …; provide a page flow to the user device …; receive the solicited information”, and generic computer components of one or more processors and memory. The additional elements of the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of remotely verifying a non-resident alien identity) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of “receive a request …”, “provide a page flow to the user device …”, and “receive the solicited information” are considered extra solution activity/pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, and providing a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. These elements are activities that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of implementing the steps using the generic computer components (one or more processor and memory) recited in claims 1 and 11 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an invention concept. Thus, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3 and 12-3 further narrow the page flow limitation recited in the independent claims. The page flow is merely displaying or gathering/loading data to a device which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For the same rational above, the claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-3 and 12-13 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 4 and 14 recite additional elements of “receive the photo of the foreign government ID; and extract at least one of the identification information from the photo of the foreign government ID using optical character recognition”. Receiving the photo and extracting data from the photo is merely gathering data which is considered extra significant activity. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For the same rational above, the claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 4 and 14 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 5 and 15 recite limitations of “validate the solicited information against one or more domestic governmental data stores; validate the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores; and generate a validation score corresponding to a risk probability associated with the non-resident alien, the validation score comprising a first score component and a second score component”. It has been determine that the steps of validating the solicited information and generating a validation score are steps that can be perform in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper. The additional element of implementing the steps using the generic computer components (one or more processor and memory) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same rational above, the claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 6 and 16 recite limitations of “wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores and the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores are performed concurrently”. It has been determine that the steps of validating the solicited information is a step that can be perform in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper. For the same rational above, the claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 6 and 16 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 7 and 17 recite limitations of “wherein to validate the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: query one or more domestic governmental data stores based on the solicited information to identify domestic data corresponding to the non-resident alien; compare the solicited information with the domestic data; identify one or more names associated with the domestic data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculate a first validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien”. It has been determine that these steps can also be perform in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper. For the same rational above, the claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 7 and 17 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 8 and 18 recite limitations of “wherein to validate the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: query one or more watch-list data stores based on the solicited information to identify watch-list data corresponding to the non-resident alien; compare the solicited information with the watch-list data; identify one or more names associated with the watch-list data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien; and calculate a second validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien”. It has been determine that these steps can also be perform in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper. For the same rational above, the claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 8 and 118 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 9 and 19 recite limitations of “compare the first validation score with a first threshold value to determine the first score component of the validation score; compare the second validation score with a second threshold value to determine the second score component of the validation score; determine whether each of the first score component and the second score component indicates a passing score; and assign a status to an application associated with the non-resident alien based on the first score component and the second score component.” It has been determine that these steps can also be perform in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper. The limitations of “wherein the application is automatically approved in response to both the first score component and the second score component indicating the passing score, and wherein the application is flagged in a pending state for further review in response to at least one of the first score component and the second score component indicating a failing score” are also steps that can be perform in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper. The additional element of implementing the steps using the generic computer components (one or more processor and memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same rational above, the claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 9 and 19 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 10 and 20 merely narrow the foreign government ID limitation presented in the independent claims. Claims 10 and 20 do not recite additional elements that amounts to more than the abstract idea. For the same rational above, the claims do not recite additional element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 10 and 20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayliss CA 2748676 (hereinafter Bayliss), in further view of Bowen US 10171495 (hereinafter Bowen), in further view of Yamaguchi et al US 20170076397 (hereinafter Yamaguchi), and in further view of Lee WO 2018117288 English Machine Translation (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Bayliss teaches a method for remotely verifying a non-resident alien’s identity (abstract discloses method and system for identifying and verifying with little probability of error a foreigner entity), the method comprising: receiving a request…from a user device associated with the non-resident alien (page 8, last paragraph reveals queries regarding individual (foreigner) are submitted and processed);
querying, by the one or more processors, one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID (page 6, second and third paragraphs and page 7, first and second paragraph disclose querying a foreign database to identify a particular individual. Once the individual has been identified, additional information about the individual is retrieve from a universal database and is supplied to an operator of the foreign database. The operator may then identify records or entity representations in the foreign database that corresponds to the information/DID records acquired from the universal database).
Bayliss does not teach receiving, by one or more processors, a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien; providing, by the one or more processors, a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID); receiving, by the one or more processors, the solicited information; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data; and verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing.
Bowen teaches receiving, by one or more processors (column 12, lines 20-30 reveal processor for executing instructions), a request to establish a communication session from a user device ( Figure 3, reference number 302 “Receive connection request”. Column 9, lines 9-11 disclose receiving a connection request from a client device or other source).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss to additional include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request to confirm valid communication connections while detecting suspicious connections (column 1 ,lines 61+ of Bowen).
The combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen does not teach providing, by the one or more processors, a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID); receiving, by the one or more processors, the solicited information; comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data; and verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing.
Yamaguchi teaches providing, by one or more processors, a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID) (paragraph 85 discloses CPU device receives nonresident data , wherein the page flow receive passport information of the non-resident such as name, passport number, nationality, date of birth, and gender); receiving, by the one or more processors, the solicited information (paragraph 87 reveals the CPU receives the non-resident/solicited information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request with Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document to determine and confirm the nonresident data is accurately received by the page flow (paragraphs 86-87 of Yamaguchi).
The combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen and Yamaguchi does not teach comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data; and verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing.
Lee teaches comparing, by the one or more processors, the solicited information with the foreign data (page 7, fourth paragraph disclose the server of the financial institution may request that the received personal information be transmitted to the server of the state agency so that the personal information acquired from the personal information document matches the personal information stored in the state institution database); and verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the non-resident alien based on the comparing (page 8, second paragraph discloses the submitted personal information included in the registration card or driver’s license can be verified by connected to the server of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and personal information included in the passport or the alien registration card can be confirm/validate authenticity by connecting to the server of Ministry of Justice).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request and Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document with Lee’s teaching of comparing solicited information and verifying the identity of the non-resident to provide secure method for accessing and validating an identity information for an account remotely using a mobile terminal (page 2, last paragraph of Lee).
As to claim 2, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches wherein the page flow enables the non-resident alien to provide a photo of the foreign government ID (Yamaguchi: paragraph 85 discloses the passport is recorded by the OCR. Lee: page 3, second paragraph discloses image processing method involves obtaining photograph of a personal information document). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 1.
As to claim 3, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches wherein the page flow enables the non-resident alien to capture the photo of the foreign government ID by manipulating a camera device of the user device (Lee: page 3, second paragraph discloses the page flow/received data allows the foreigner to use the mobile terminal to photograph the personal information document). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 1.
As to claim 4, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches receiving, by the one or more processors, the photo of the foreign government ID (Lee: page 3, second paragraph discloses the page flow/received data allows the foreigner to use the mobile terminal to photograph the personal information document); and extracting, by the one or more processors, at least one of the identification information from the photo of the foreign government ID using optical character recognition (Yamaguchi: paragraph 85 discloses the passport is recorded by the OCR and passport information such as name, nationality, date of birth, gender are extracted. This is obtain by the CPU. Lee: page 3, second paragraph discloses image processing method involves obtaining photograph of a personal information document. Last paragraph of page 3 reveal personal information from the personal information document is acquired via OCR). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 1.
As to claim 10, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches wherein the foreign government ID is a local foreign government ID (Yamaguchi: paragraph 85 discloses the passport information is obtained. A passport is a local foreign government ID). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 1.
As to claim 11, Bayliss teaches a system for remotely verifying a non-resident alien identity (abstract discloses method and system for identifying and verifying with little probability of error a foreigner entity), the system comprising one or more processor; one or more processors; and memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (page 71, first paragraph reveal the system includes processing machines/processor that uses one memory. The memory stores instructions that are executed by the processor), cause the one or more processors (page 71, first paragraph) to:
receiving a request…from a user device associated with the non-resident alien (page 8, last paragraph reveals queries regarding individual (foreigner) are submitted and processed);
query, by the one or more processors, one or more foreign governmental data stores to identify foreign data associated with the non-resident alien based on an identifier assigned to the non-resident alien from among the identification information shown on the foreign government ID (page 6, second and third paragraphs and page 7, first and second paragraph disclose querying a foreign database to identify a particular individual. Once the individual has been identified, additional information about the individual is retrieve from a universal database and is supplied to an operator of the foreign database. The operator may then identify records or entity representations in the foreign database that corresponds to the information/DID records acquired from the universal database).
Bayliss does not teach receive a request to establish a communication session from a user device associated with the non-resident alien; provide a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID); receive the solicited information; compare the solicited information with the foreign data; and verify an identity of the non-resident alien based on the compare.
Bowen teaches receive a request to establish a communication session from a user device ( Figure 3, reference number 302 “Receive connection request”. Column 9, lines 9-11 disclose receiving a connection request from a client device or other source).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss to additional include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request to confirm valid communication connections while detecting suspicious connections (column 1 ,lines 61+ of Bowen).
The combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen does not teach provide a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID); receive the solicited information; compare the solicited information with the foreign data; and verify an identity of the non-resident alien based on the compare.
Yamaguchi teaches provide a page flow to the user device to solicit information from the non-resident alien, the solicited information comprising identification information shown on a foreign government identification document (ID) (paragraph 85 discloses CPU device receives nonresident data , wherein the page flow receive passport information of the non-resident such as name, passport number, nationality, date of birth, and gender); receive the solicited information (paragraph 87 reveals the CPU receives the non-resident/solicited information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request with Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document to determine and confirm the nonresident data is accurately received by the page flow (paragraphs 86-87 of Yamaguchi).
The combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen and Yamaguchi does not teach compare the solicited information with the foreign data; and verify an identity of the non-resident alien based on the compare.
Lee teaches compare the solicited information with the foreign data (page 7, fourth paragraph disclose the server of the financial institution may request that the received personal information be transmitted to the server of the state agency so that the personal information acquired from the personal information document matches the personal information stored in the state institution database); and verify an identity of the non-resident alien based on the compare (page 8, second paragraph discloses the submitted personal information included in the registration card or driver’s license can be verified by connected to the server of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and personal information included in the passport or the alien registration card can be confirm/validate authenticity by connecting to the server of Ministry of Justice).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request and Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document with Lee’s teaching of comparing solicited information and verifying the identity of the non-resident to provide secure method for accessing and validating an identity information for an account remotely using a mobile terminal (page 2, last paragraph of Lee).
As to claim 12, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches wherein the page flow enables the non-resident alien to provide a photo of the foreign government ID (Yamaguchi: paragraph 85 discloses the passport is recorded by the OCR. Lee: page 3, second paragraph discloses image processing method involves obtaining photograph of a personal information document). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 11.
As to claim 13, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches wherein the page flow enables the non-resident alien to capture the photo of the foreign government ID by manipulating a camera device of the user device (Lee: page 3, second paragraph discloses the page flow/received data allows the foreigner to use the mobile terminal to photograph the personal information document). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 11.
As to claim 14, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph; Yamaguchi: paragraph 87 reveals the CPU. Lee: page 7, second paragraph discloses utilizing the software installed on the mobile terminal): receive the photo of the foreign government ID (Lee: page 3, second paragraph discloses the page flow/received data allows the foreigner to use the mobile terminal to photograph the personal information document); and extracting, by the one or more processors, at least one of the identification information from the photo of the foreign government ID using optical character recognition (Yamaguchi: paragraph 85 discloses the passport is recorded by the OCR and passport information such as name, nationality, date of birth, gender are extracted. This is obtain by the CPU. Lee: page 3, second paragraph discloses image processing method involves obtaining photograph of a personal information document. Last paragraph of page 3 reveal personal information from the personal information document is acquired via OCR). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 11.
As to claim 20, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches wherein the foreign government ID is a local foreign government ID (Yamaguchi: paragraph 85 discloses the passport information is obtained. A passport is a local foreign government ID). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 11.
.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayliss CA 2748676 (hereinafter Bayliss), in further view of Bowen US 10171495 (hereinafter Bowen), in further view of Yamaguchi et al US 20170076397 (hereinafter Yamaguchi), in further view of Lee WO 2018117288 English Machine Translation (hereinafter Lee), and in further view of Sun et al CN 109450639 English Machine Translation (hereinafter Sun).
As to claim 5, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1 above and further teaches validating, by the one or more processors (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph. Lee: page 7, second paragraph discloses utilizing the software installed on the mobile terminal), the solicited information against one or more domestic governmental data stores (Lee: page 8, second paragraph discloses the submitted personal information included in the registration card or driver’s license can be verified by connected to the server of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and personal information included in the passport or the alien registration card can be confirm/validate authenticity by connecting to the server of Ministry of Justice); and generating, by the one or more processors (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph), a validation score corresponding to a risk probability associated with the non-resident alien, the validation score comprising a first score component and a second score component (Bayliss: page 12, third and fourth paragraphs reveals a confidence level is assessed regarding whether the record (corresponding to the foreigner entity) is correct. The score involves comparing two score components). Motivation similar to the motivation presented for claim 1.
The combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee does not teach, but Sun teaches validating, by the one or more processors (paragraph 3, lines 24-29 disclose processor executing stored instructions), the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores (page 7, last paragraph reveals determining whether the user belongs to blacklist/watchlist by comparing identity information/solicited information provided by the user).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request , Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document, and Lee’s teaching of comparing solicited information and verifying the identity of the non-resident with Sun’s teachings of validating solicited information with a blacklist/watch list to improve the accuracy of the identity checks (page 2, lines 20-27 of Sun).
As to claim 6, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, Lee, and Sun teaches wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores (Lee: page 8, second paragraph discloses the submitted personal information included in the registration card or driver’s license can be verified by connected to the server of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and personal information included in the passport or the alien registration card can be confirm/validate authenticity by connecting to the server of Ministry of Justice. Sun: page 2, last two lines reveals determining the user belongs to the preset users: blacklist users or alien users) and the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores are performed, by the one or more processors, concurrently (Sun: paragraph 3, lines 24-29 disclose processor executing stored instructions), the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores (page 7, last paragraph reveals determining whether the user belongs to blacklist/watchlist by comparing identity information/solicited information provided by the user).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request , Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document, and Lee’s teaching of comparing solicited information and verifying the identity of the non-resident and concurrently apply Sun’s teachings of validating solicited information with a blacklist/watch list to improve the accuracy of the identity checks (page 2, lines 20-27 of Sun).
As to claim 7, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, Lee, and Sun teaches wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores comprises: querying, by the one or more processors (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph), one or more domestic governmental data stores based on the solicited information to identify domestic data corresponding to the non-resident alien (Bayliss: page 9, first paragraph reveal querying a universal database to identify an entity representation in a foreign database by way of DID received data); comparing, by the one or more processors (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph), the solicited information with the domestic data ( Bayliss: page 12 discloses comparing the queried/received solicited information with first record from the universal database ); identifying, by the one or more processors (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph), one or more names associated with the domestic data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien (Bayliss: page 12 discloses identifying and sorted the data (include name John Smith/foreign entity) that is associated with the data from the universal data base) ; and calculating, by the one or more processors (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph), a first validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien (Bayliss: page 12 discloses determination a confidence level and score regarding whether the first record from the universal database is indeed the data specified in the query/ received /solicited information).
As to claim 51, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee teaches all the limitations recited in claim 11 above and further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: validate (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph. Lee: page 7, second paragraph discloses utilizing the software installed on the mobile terminal) the solicited information against one or more domestic governmental data stores (Lee: page 8, second paragraph discloses the submitted personal information included in the registration card or driver’s license can be verified by connected to the server of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and personal information included in the passport or the alien registration card can be confirm/validate authenticity by connecting to the server of Ministry of Justice); and generate a validation score corresponding to a risk probability associated with the non-resident alien, the validation score comprising a first score component and a second score component (Bayliss: page 12, third and fourth paragraphs reveals a confidence level is assessed regarding whether the record (corresponding to the foreigner entity) is correct. The score involves comparing two score components). Motivation similar to the motivation presented for claim 11.
The combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, and Lee does not teach, but Sun teaches validating (paragraph 3, lines 24-29 disclose processor executing stored instructions) the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores (page 7, last paragraph reveals determining whether the user belongs to blacklist/watchlist by comparing identity information/solicited information provided by the user).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request , Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document, and Lee’s teaching of comparing solicited information and verifying the identity of the non-resident with Sun’s teachings of validating solicited information with a blacklist/watch list to improve the accuracy of the identity checks (page 2, lines 20-27 of Sun).
As to claim 16, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, Lee, and Sun teaches wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores (Lee: page 8, second paragraph discloses the submitted personal information included in the registration card or driver’s license can be verified by connected to the server of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and personal information included in the passport or the alien registration card can be confirm/validate authenticity by connecting to the server of Ministry of Justice. Sun: page 2, last two lines reveals determining the user belongs to the preset users: blacklist users or alien users) and the validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores are performed, by the one or more processors, concurrently (Sun: paragraph 3, lines 24-29 disclose processor executing stored instructions), the solicited information against one or more watch-list data stores (page 7, last paragraph reveals determining whether the user belongs to blacklist/watchlist by comparing identity information/solicited information provided by the user).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request , Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document, and Lee’s teaching of comparing solicited information and verifying the identity of the non-resident and concurrently apply Sun’s teachings of validating solicited information with a blacklist/watch list to improve the accuracy of the identity checks (page 2, lines 20-27 of Sun).
As to claim 17, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, Lee, and Sun teaches wherein the validating of the solicited information against the one or more domestic governmental data stores, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: query (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph) one or more domestic governmental data stores based on the solicited information to identify domestic data corresponding to the non-resident alien (Bayliss: page 9, first paragraph reveal querying a universal database to identify an entity representation in a foreign database by way of DID received data); compare (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph) the solicited information with the domestic data ( Bayliss: page 12 discloses comparing the queried/received solicited information with first record from the universal database ); identify (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph) one or more names associated with the domestic data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien (Bayliss: page 12 discloses identifying and sorted the data (include name John Smith/foreign entity) that is associated with the data from the universal data base) ; and calculate (Bayliss: page 71, first paragraph) a first validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien (Bayliss: page 12 discloses determination a confidence level and score regarding whether the first record from the universal database is indeed the data specified in the query/ received /solicited information).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayliss CA 2748676 (hereinafter Bayliss), in view of Bowen US 10171495 (hereinafter Bowen), in further view of Yamaguchi et al US 20170076397 (hereinafter Yamaguchi), in further view of Lee WO 2018117288 English Machine Translation (hereinafter Lee), in further view of Sun et al CN 109450639 English Machine Translation (hereinafter Sun), and in further view of Rickman US 20120123821 (hereinafter Rickman).
As to claim 8, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, Lee, and Sun teaches all the limitations recited in claim 7 above including validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores (see claim 7 above).
The combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, Lee, and Sun do not teach, but Rickman teaches querying, by the one or more processors (paragraph 25 disclose processor executing stored memory instructions), one or more watch-list data stores based on the solicited information to identify watch-list data corresponding to the non-resident alien (paragraph 44 discloses the identity module searches/queries the identity database to retrieve known identities. Paragraph 33 discloses the database may comprise a watchlist database ); comparing, by the one or more processors (paragraph 25 disclose processor executing stored memory instructions), the solicited information with the watch-list data (paragraph 51 discloses the identity risk sub module determines if each known identity matches any watch list names); identifying, by the one or more processors (paragraph 25 disclose processor executing stored memory instructions), one or more names associated with the watch-list data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien (paragraphs 31 and 51 disclose the identity risk sub module determines if each known identity matches any watch list names. An assessment for an individual coming from another country/non-resident alien); and calculating, by the one or more processors (paragraph 25 discloses processor executing stored memory instructions), a second validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien (paragraphs 8, 31, and 44 disclose computing a probability score of the identified name (one from another country/non-resident alien) matches the name in the watchlist).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request , Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document, Lee’s teaching of comparing solicited information and verifying the identity of the non-resident and concurrently apply Sun’s teachings of validating solicited information with a blacklist/watch list with Rickman’s teachings of utilizing watchlist data store to provide an improved system and method for providing risk assessment of an asserted identity and provide a quick, consistent, multi-dimensional and reliable risk assessment for an asserted identity (paragraph 6 of Rickman).
As to claim 8, the combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, Lee, and Sun teaches all the limitations recited in claim 17 above including validating of the solicited information against the one or more watch-list data stores (see claim 7 above).
The combination of Bayliss in view of Bowen, Yamaguchi, Lee, and Sun do not teach, but Rickman the instructions further cause the one or more processor to (paragraph 25 disclose processor executing stored memory instructions) query one or more watch-list data stores based on the solicited information to identify watch-list data corresponding to the non-resident alien (paragraph 44 discloses the identity module searches/queries the identity database to retrieve known identities. Paragraph 33 discloses the database may comprise a watchlist database ); compare (paragraph 25 disclose processor executing stored memory instructions) the solicited information with the watch-list data (paragraph 51 discloses the identity risk sub module determines if each known identity matches any watch list names); identify (paragraph 25 disclose processor executing stored memory instructions) one or more names associated with the watch-list data that are similar to or the same as a name of the non-resident alien (paragraphs 31 and 51 disclose the identity risk sub module determines if each known identity matches any watch list names. An assessment for an individual coming from another country/non-resident alien); and calculate (paragraph 25 discloses processor executing stored memory instructions) a second validation score indicating a probability match that the one or more similar or the same names correspond to the non-resident alien (paragraphs 8, 31, and 44 disclose computing a probability score of the identified name (one from another country/non-resident alien) matches the name in the watchlist).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query disclosed in Bayliss and additionally include Bowen’s teachings of establishing a communication session via a request , Yamaguchi’s teachings of receiving page flow of a foreign government document, Lee’s teaching of comparing solicited information and verifying the identity of the non-resident and concurrently apply Sun’s teachings of validating solicited information with a blacklist/watch list with Rickman’s teachings of utilizing watchlist data store to provide an improved system and method for providing risk assessment of an asserted identity and provide a quick, consistent, multi-dimensional and reliable risk assessment for an asserted identity (paragraph 6 of Rickman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA FARROW whose telephone number is (571)272-1856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30am-4:00pm (EST).
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/F.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437