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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continuation-in-Part
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 18/388,625 filed on November 10, 2023 ("Parent Application"). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
Claim Objection
The applicant is advised to review the claim(s) for antecedent basis issues. For example, the recited “selected proposition” should be “the selected proposition”. The applicant is advised to review the claim(s) and amend the claim(s) accordingly to address antecedent basis issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claim 1, the claim recites in part “A computer implemented method to manage secure voting for a registered voter, the method comprising … storing the selected candidate and/or selected proposition in a secure registered voter database associated with and only accessible by the registered voter”. While the Specification, indeed, show support for “storing the selected candidate and/or selected proposition in a secure registered voter database associated with and only accessible by the registered voter”, the Specification does not disclose how the storing of such data in the secure registered voter database achieves such desired result of only accessible by the registered voter.
Claims 10 and 17 include same deficiency(s) as identified in claim 1. As such, claims 10 and 17 are rejected.
The dependent claim(s) are rejected as they depend on the claim(s) above and fail to cure the deficiency(s).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claim 1, the claim recites in part “determining, by the secure ballot application, from historical preferences, candidate information, personal profile of the registered voter, proposition background or a combination thereof, a selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter; securely recording a registered voter selection for a selected candidate and/or selected proposition”. Here, the scope of the claim is unclear as the term “selection” necessarily infer an act of selecting or choosing (see Merriam-Wester dictionary with definition of “the act or process of selecting: the state of being selected”). In spite of such definition, one of ordinary skill would understand that the “selection” is the secure ballot application determining. The claim, however, recites “a registered voter selection for a selected candidate and/or selected proposition” which suggests that the selection is performed by the registered voter.
Claims 10 and 17 include same deficiency(s) as identified in claim 1. As such, claims 10 and 17 are rejected.
In further reference to claim 10, the claim recites “at least one processor configured to execute the computer executable instructions to: …” The claim, however, recites that some of the function(s) to be performed by a secure ballot application. The claim is rejected as the claim does not illuminate as to whether the secure ballot application is equivalent to “the computer executable instructions” that the at least one processor is executing.
Claim 17 also include similar deficiency as claim 10 in that the claim does not illuminate as to whether the secure ballot application is equivalent to “computer executable instructions” recited in the preamble.
As per claim 9, the scope of the claim is unclear. Particularly, the claim recites “The method of claim 1, where determining, by the secure ballot application, from historical preferences, candidate information, personal profile of the registered voter, proposition background or a combination thereof, a selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter by training and using a machine learning model to determine the selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter”. Here, the scope of the claim is unclear as to whether the recited determining is attempting to further describe the determining recitation in claim 1. If so, the claim should be amended to recite “The method of claim 1, where the determining, by the secure ballot application, the selection of the preferred candidate and/or the preferred proposition for the registered voter is performed by training and using a machine learning model to determine the selection of a preferred candidate and/or the preferred proposition for the registered voter.”
Claim 20 is rejected as the claim’s construction is significantly similar to claim 9.
The dependent claim(s) are rejected as they depend on the claim(s) above and fail to cure the deficiency(s).
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-9 (group I) are directed to a method (i.e. process), claims 10-16 (group II) directed to a system, while claims 17-20 (group III) is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 1 recites: A computer implemented method to manage secure voting for a registered voter, the method comprising:
obtaining voter registration information about the registered voter desiring to cast a vote in an election;
securely authenticating the registered voter based on identifying information provided by the registered voter and matching the identifying information with a voter registration record;
providing, by a secure ballot application, a ballot for the election, where the ballot comprises at least one of candidate information, propositions in the election, instructions for completing the ballot or a combination thereof;
determining, by the secure ballot application, from historical preferences, candidate information, personal profile of the registered voter, proposition background or a combination thereof, a selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter;
securely recording a registered voter selection for a selected candidate and/or selected proposition;
securely transmitting, via the secure ballot application, the selected candidate and/or selected proposition to a secure voting recordation database;
storing the selected candidate and/or selected proposition in a secure registered voter database associated with and only accessible by the registered voter; and
providing a copy of a receipt of the selected candidate and/or selected proposition to the registered voter.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))
The claim recites a process of managing secure voting for a registered voter including steps of obtaining voter registration information on the registered voter, securely authenticating the registration voter based on the obtained information and information provided by the registered voter, providing ballot for election, determining from information a selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter, securely recoding a registered voter selection, securely transmitting the selected candidate and/or selected proposition, storing the selected candidate and/or selected proposition, and providing a copy of receipt of the selected candidate and/or selected proposition to the registered voter. As such, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions and/or social activities particularly regards to election/voting).
Independent claims 10 and 17 are significantly similar to claim 1. As such, claims 10 and 17 also recite abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e. computer-implemented/generated, secure ballot application, database(s), system comprising at least one memory, and at least one processor, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer program are recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea as described above in the Step 2A (prong 1), and/or merely uses a computer (i.e., device, processor, database(s), computer executable instructions) as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment (i.e., virtual environment)– see MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitation, e.g. abstract idea as described above, do not represent: Improvements to the functioning of the computing system or the components of the computing system , or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a); or Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited computer system or its components individually or in combination or the database(s).
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims further expand and recite the abstract idea. Dependent claims 9 and 20 further recite training and using machine learning model. However, this is recited at high level generality amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or confining the use of abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., machine learning).
Accordingly, it is determined that claims 1-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2017/0011576 (“Scotson”) in view of US Patent Publication No. 2021/0358253 (“White”) and US Patent Publication No. 2022/0230500 (“Matysiak”).
Per claims 1, 10, and 17, Scotson discloses A computer implemented method to manage secure voting for a registered voter, the method comprising:
obtaining voter registration information about the registered voter desiring to cast a vote in an election (see ¶0022, verifying the registration status of the user can function as a means for validating the identity of the user requesting the account. Accordingly, voting system 101 employs the account creation process to ensure that only users whose identity has been verified by the applicable governmental entity will have the ability to vote via voting system 101; ¶0024, user’s identity including biometric, driver license, passport, birth certificate, etc.; ¶0025; ¶0030; ¶0031);
securely authenticating the registered voter based on identifying information provided by the registered voter and matching the identifying information with a voter registration record, where securely authenticating the registered voter comprises authenticating with at least one of a driver's license, birth certificate, passport, green card, fingerprints, visa, biometric authentication, two-factor authentication, photo captured by or stored by a mobile device or a combination thereof (claims 7, 16, and 18)(see ¶0024-¶0025; ¶0030; ¶0031, authenticating of the voter by matching; ¶0037-¶0038; ¶0041; ¶0045);
providing, by a secure ballot application, a ballot for the election, where the ballot comprises at least one of candidate information, propositions in the election, instructions for completing the ballot or a combination thereof (see ¶0047, candidates and ballot measures displayed);
determining, by the secure ballot application, from historical preferences, candidate information, personal profile of the registered voter, proposition background or a combination thereof, a selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter (see ¶0047, based on user’s voting districts);
allowing the registered voter to pause an execution of the secure ballot application; query additional candidate information and/or additional proposition information related to the election; and restart the paused execution of the secure ballot application (claims 4 and 13) allowing the registered voter to save ballot selection information before exiting the secure ballot application; and allowing the registered voter to reopen the saved ballot selection information upon reopening the secure ballot application (claims 3 and 12) (see ¶0048, allow the user to save his or her progress in order to later return to the voting platform to resume the voting process … user can have sufficient time to thoroughly research the candidates or issues … can provide information to allow the user to research);
securely recording a registered voter selection for a selected candidate and/or selected proposition, where recording the registered voter selection comprises allowing the registered voter to change the registered voter selection before transmitting the selected candidate and/or the selected proposition (claims 6 and 15) (see ¶0047, tallying … after votes are formally submitted for a user’s account, voting system 101 can prevent any further votes from being submitted via the account; ¶0048, allow the user to save his or her progress in order to later return to the voting platform to resume the voting process … user can have sufficient time to thoroughly research the candidates or issues … can provide information to allow the user to research);
securely transmitting, via the secure ballot application, the selected candidate and/or selected proposition (see ¶0047, tallying … after votes are formally submitted for a user’s account, voting system 101 can prevent any further votes from being submitted via the account).
Scotson further teaches a system comprising at least one memory configured to store computer executable instructions; non-transitory computer readable medium; and at least one processor (see ¶0013-0014).
Scotson does not specifically teach that the vote, i.e., the selected candidate and/or selected proposition to a secure voting recordation database, is transmitted to a secure voting recordation database and providing a copy of a receipt of the selected candidate and/or selected proposition to the registered voter.
White, however, teaches transmitting the selection, i.e., ballot, to a secure voting recordation database and providing copy of a receipt of the selected candidate and/or selected proposition to the registered voter (see ¶0034-¶0037, submitting … ballot to be created and stored … encrypted … database entry protected using any number of conventional security strategy … the secure document is structured in a way that shows both the ballot questions as well as the selected responses; ¶0044, sends a notification to the voter via electronic means regarding the success of their online vote).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to combine the techniques in White to Scotson as the combination ensures that the results of an election are uncorrupted (see White: ¶0005).
The combination of Scotson and White does not specifically teach storing the selected candidate and/or selected proposition in a secure registered voter database associated with and only accessible by the registered voter.
Matysiak, however, teaches storing the selected candidate and/or selected proposition in a secure registered voter database associated with and only accessible by the registered voter (see ¶0046; ¶0059, save their decisions such as for an election ballot on their phone; claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the voting system of combined Scotson and White technique of storing the selection/decision on the voter’s device as taught by Matysiak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claims 2 and 11, the combination of Scotson, White, and Matysiak discloses determining a location and timestamp of the registered voter by a positioning device; providing information to the registered voter regarding voting districts, election schedule; allowing the registered voter to record the selected candidate and/or the selected proposition if the determined location and determined timestamp are acceptable for the election schedule; and prohibiting the registered voter from recording the selected candidate and/or selected proposition if the determined location and the determined timestamp are invalid for the election schedule (see Scotson: ¶0049-¶0050, using GPS coordinates during the voting period for allowing voting).
As per claims 5 and 14, the combination of Scotson, White, and Matysiak does not specifically disclose 5. The method of claim 1, where recording the registered voter selection comprises recording a no-vote selection for the selected candidate and/or the selected proposition.
The examiner takes Official Notice that no-vote selection in ballot casting is old and well known in the art of voting before the effective filing of claimed invention.
Hence, as the combination of Scotson, White, and Matysiak discloses recording of ballot, i.e., selection for the selected candidate and/or the selected proposition as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include any known type of ballot, including no-vote selection, as one of the selections in the ballot in the combined Scotson, White, and Matysiak.
As per claims 8 and 19, the combination of Scotson, White, and Matysiak where securely recording the registered voter selection comprises recording by at least one of an encrypted version of the registered voter selection, a computer-generated hash of the registered voter selection, recording on a voting blockchain, storing the registered voter selection with a password or a combination thereof (see ¶0034-¶0037, database entry protected using any number of conventional security strategy including blockchain, encryption, etc.).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Scotson”, “White”, and “Matysiak” as applied in claims 1 and 19 above in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2024/0078859 (“Falor”).
Per claims 9 and 20, the combination of Scotson, White, and Matysiak does not specifically teach where determining, by the secure ballot application, from historical preferences, candidate information, personal profile of the registered voter, proposition background or a combination thereof, a selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter by training and using a machine learning model to determine the selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter.
Falor, however, teaches use of AI or ML algorithms/models and training the models to detect the pattern detection and to provide an output or render a decision based on the data pattern detection, i.e., based on a historical pattern of data.
Hence, as the combination of Scotson, White, and Matysiak teaches determining, by the secure ballot application, from historical preferences, candidate information, personal profile of the registered voter, proposition background or a combination thereof, a selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to include any known technique of algorithm, including traing and using a machine learning model as taught by Falor as the algorithm used in determining the selection of a preferred candidate and/or preferred proposition for the registered voter in combined Scotson, White, and Matysiak.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 20190205770 discloses training machine learning model;
US Patent Publication No. 20170178438 discloses an electronic voting utilizing a portable device and includes user authentication;
US Patent No. 10,002,481 discloses voting system that utilizes voting APP on a mobile device in selecting candidates on a ballot including authentication of a voter;
US Patent Publication No. 20150221153 discloses authentication of user of a user device and processing of vote from the user device;
US Patent No. 5,892,900 discloses various cryptographic technique in securing of data in storage or in transmission.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698