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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/01/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 and all intervening claims 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. Applicant uses the term “non-standardized format” and “standardized format” within the claim limitation without any clear indication as to what a “non-standardized format” and “standardized format” are within the specification.
Claim 18 and all intervening claims 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. Applicant uses the term “non-standardized format” and “standardized format” within the claim limitation without any clear indication as to what a “non-standardized format” and “standardized format” are within the specification.
Claim 20 and all intervening claims 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. Applicant uses the term “non-standardized format” and “standardized format” within the claim limitation without any clear indication as to what a “non-standardized format” and “standardized format” are within the specification.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub.No.: US 2016/0267490 A1 to Johnson in view of Pub.No.: US 2019/0213820 A1 to Sebes et al(hereafter referenced as Sebes).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses “A method for identifying one or more deficiencies in an election system(A computer-implemented method for detecting non-negligible election fraud using a computer program product that includes a fraud detection server comprising a processor and a database [par.0006]) , “comprising: providing remote access over a network to a non-transitory storage device for updating information about an election in real time” (computer 610 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as a remote computer 680 [par.0337]) ; retrieving the information in a non-standardized format dependent on one or more hardware and software platforms of at least one election data source database” (data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis. [par.0060]) ; “converting, by a content server, the non-standardized format into the standardized format” (data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis. [par.0060]); “storing the information about election data source records in the standardized format within the content server” (fraud detection Server 101 may comprise a processor 102 that may accept and execute computerized instructions, and also a data store 103 which may store data and instructions used by the processor 102. [par.0059]) ; retrieving one or more legal framework records and converting as the standardized format into the content server” (data management Subsystem 105 instructions, Data Analysis Subsystem 106 instructions, and Data Reporting Subsystem 107 instructions, and Access Control Subsystem 108 instructions may be stored in the data store 103 and retrieved by the processor 102 for execution [par.0059]) ; generating one or more compliance rules” (the data reporting subsystem 107 may generate a report that may highlight the anomaly-containing data set as a candidate for further investigation of possible election fraud (Block 350) [par.0077]), “comparing the information in the standardized format with the one or more compliance rules to identify the one or more deficiencies in the election data source records”(election analyst client [Fig.1/item 110]).
Johnson does not explicitly disclose “automatically generating a remedial message about the compared information of the election data source records by the content server after validating the information; and transmitting the remedial message to a first user over the network in real time.”
However, Sebes in an analogous art discloses “automatically generating a remedial message about the compared information of the election data source records by the content server after validating the information”(validate timing track Sebes [Fig.22/item 2106] generate grid Sebes [Fig.22/item 2108]) ; “and transmitting the remedial message to a first user over the network in real time.”( voting status closure signal is transmitted to the voter roll 820 and the digital pollbook manager database 830 to modify the open state of the voting status switch 822 of the voter entry 816 Sebes [par.0193]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Johnson’s fraud detection system with Sebe’s secure balloting system in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Johnson teaches voting fraud detection system which ensures a secure system, Sebes additionally discloses a secure balloting system which generates validated messages , and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the first user is an election personnel”(local election official ( LEO ) can log in to the administrator module 210 through the administrator application 212 Sebes[par.0047]).
Regarding claim 3 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the remote access is provided by encrypted, and at least one of authorized, authenticated, or a combination thereof access via an API”(the secure channel 226 and secure channel 228 utilize secure transfer protocols and / or encryption Sebes [par.0048]).
Regarding claim 4 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the transmitted remedial message is cybersecure and limited.” (the secure channel 226 and secure channel 228 utilize secure transfer protocols and / or encryption Sebes [par.0048]).
Regarding claim 5 in view of claim 1, the references combined discloses “after a first predetermined period of time, wherein the content server confirms whether the first user has received and opened the remedial message”(voter module 202 may generate a structured registration confirmation 406 and communicate the structured registration confirmation 406 to the voter terminal device 108 , which may operate the printer / scanner 404 to render a printout of the structured registration confirmation [par.0140]).
Regarding claim 6 in view of claim 5, the references combined discloses “further comprising, after a second predetermined period of time, retrieving updated information in the non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform of each of the at least one election data source database”(resolution engine 824 retrieves resolution instructions 1212 from the Jurisdictional solutions database 1204 for the discrepancy parameters 1210 Sebes[par.0272]); “converting, by the content server, an updated non-standardized format into an updated standardized format” (data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis Johnson[par.0060]); “storing an updated standardized information about elections in the election data source records in the standardized format”(fraud detection Server 101 may comprise a processor 102 that may accept and execute computerized instructions, and also a data store 103 which may store data and instructions used by the processor 102. Johnson[par.0059]); “comparing the information in the updated standardized format with the one or more compliance rules to identify the one or more deficiencies in an election data source” (election analyst client Johnson[Fig.1/item 110]); determining if the remedial message sent to the first user has resulted in corrective action; automatically generating a message about the elections by the content server if no corrective action taken by the first user in a predefined time frame” (election analyst client Johnson[Fig.1/item 110]); “and transmitting the message to a second user being an election personnel over the network in real time regarding non-action by the first user to bring a deficient election record into compliance” ( voting status closure signal is transmitted to the voter roll 820 and the digital pollbook manager database 830 to modify the open state of the voting status switch 822 of the voter entry 816 Sebes [par.0193]).
Regarding claim 7 in view of claim 6, the references combined disclose “wherein the second user is a superior to the first user”( the main DRE or BMD usage process may include presentation of ballot options , recording of user selections , and optionally confirming selections before finalizing the selection process Sebes[par.0085]) Regarding claim 8 in view of claim 5, the references combined disclose “further comprising, after a second predetermined period of time, retrieving updated information in the non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform of each of the at least one election data source database” (data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis. Johnson [par.0060]); “converting, by the content server, an updated non-standardized format into an updated standardized format” (data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis Johnson [par.0060]); “storing an updated standardized information about elections in the election data source
records in the standardized format” (fraud detection Server 101 may comprise a processor 102 that may accept and execute computerized instructions, and also a data store 103 which may store data and instructions used by the processor 102. [par.0059]); “comparing the information in the updated standardized format with the one or more compliance rules to identify the one or more deficiencies in an election data source” (election analyst client [Fig.1/item 110]).; determining if the remedial message sent to the first user has resulted in corrective action; and automatically recording and removing an alert if corrective action has been undertaken by the first user” ” (election analyst client Johnson[Fig.1/item 110]).
Regarding claim 9 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the one or more deficiencies in the election system are determined before an election, during the election, or after the election” (election analyst client [Fig.1/item 110]).
Regarding claim 10 in view of claim 9, the references combined disclose “wherein the election data source records during the election comprises at least one of mail ballot signatures, machine calibration, or a combination thereof”(transform voter checkin document into ballot request signal Sebes[Fig.9/item 902]).
Regarding claim 11 in view of claim 9, the references combined disclose “wherein the election data source records after the election comprises at least one of audit data, certification data, or a combination thereof.”(random audit may be sufficient for lowering the magnitude of such fraud Johnson[par.0097]).
Regarding claim 12 in view of claim 9, the references combined disclose “ further comprising identifying the one or more deficiencies by comparing at least one voter verification data comprised in a poll book with at least one voter registration data to identify changes in voter qualifications” (transmit voter check-in document into ballot request signal for transmission to voter roll through operations of digital pollbook Sebes[Fig.9/item 902]).
Regarding claim 13 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein retrieving data from comprises using read-only transfers from the at least one election data source database into the content server” (data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis Johnson[par.0060]);
Regarding claim 14 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the election data source records comprises at least one voter record, which comprises at least about 1,000,0000 individual voters.” (the secure channel 226 and secure channel 228 utilize secure transfer protocols and / or encryption Sebes [par.0048]).
Regarding claim 15 in view of claim 14, the references combined disclose “wherein the transmitting the remedial message to the first user of at least one voter record in real time is no more than hourly” (Voting status closure signal 1314 is transmitted to the voter roll 820 and the digital pollbook manager database 830 to change the state of voting status switch 1306 from an open state to a closed state Sebes [par.0273]).
Regarding claim 16 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein a user is an election officer, an elected official, or a member of the general public.” (local election official ( LEO ) can log in to the administrator module 210 through the administrator application 212 Sebes[par.0047]).
Regarding claim 17 in view of claim 16, the references combined disclose “wherein user's access to information within the election data source records in the standardized format varies on a user's position” (local election official ( LEO ) can log in to the administrator module 210 through the administrator application 212 Sebes[par.0047]).
Regarding claim 18 , Johnson discloses “an election system for maintaining election integrity in at least one jurisdiction, comprising: a content server (fraud detection server [Fig.1/item 1010]) configured to: receive information in a non-standardized format dependent on one or more hardware and software platforms from at least one election data source database containing information about elections in a non-standardized format” (data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis. [par.0060]), convert the non-standardized format into a standardized format(data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis. [par.0060]), store the information about election data source records in the standardized format(fraud detection Server 101 may comprise a processor 102 that may accept and execute computerized instructions, and also a data store 103 which may store data and instructions used by the processor 102. [par.0059]), compare the information in the standardized format with one or more compliance rules to identify one or more deficiencies in an election system” (election analyst client [Fig.1/item 110]).
Johnson does not explicitly disclose “automatically generate a remedial message about a compared information of the election data source records by the content server after comparing the information, and transmit the remedial message to a first user comprising an election personnel over a computer network in real time.”
However, Sebes in an analogous art discloses “automatically generate a remedial message about a compared information of the election data source records by the content server after comparing the information”(validate timing track Sebes [Fig.22/item 2106] generate grid Sebes [Fig.22/item 2108]) ; “and transmit the remedial message to a first user comprising an election personnel over a computer network in real time.”( voting status closure signal is transmitted to the voter roll 820 and the digital pollbook manager database 830 to modify the open state of the voting status switch 822 of the voter entry 816 Sebes [par.0193]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Johnson’s fraud detection system with Sebe’s secure balloting system in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Johnson teaches voting fraud detection system which ensures a secure system, Sebes additionally discloses a secure balloting system which generates validated messages , and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 19 in view of claim 18, the references combined disclose “wherein, after a second predetermined period of time, retrieves an updated information in the non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform of each of the at least one election data source database(resolution engine 824 retrieves resolution instructions 1212 from the Jurisdictional solutions database 1204 for the discrepancy parameters 1210 Sebes[par.0272]);; converts, by the content server, an updated non-standardized format into an updated standardized format(data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis Johnson[par.0060]) , stores the updated standardized information about the election data source records in the standardized format(fraud detection Server 101 may comprise a processor 102 that may accept and execute computerized instructions, and also a data store 103 which may store data and instructions used by the processor 102. Johnson[par.0059]); compares the information in the updated standardized format with the one or more compliance rules to identify the one or more deficiencies in an election system(election analyst client Johnson[Fig.1/item 110]); determines if a remedial message sent to the first user has resulted in corrective action; automatically generates a remedial message about the elections by the content server If no corrective action taken by the first user(election analyst client Johnson[Fig.1/item 110]); and transmits the remedial message to a second user comprising the election personnel over the computer network in real time regarding a non-action by the first user or creates a record if corrective action undertaken by the first user and removes an alert for the undertaken corrective action” (voting status closure signal is transmitted to the voter roll 820 and the digital pollbook manager database 830 to modify the open state of the voting status switch 822 of the voter entry 816 Sebes [par.0193]).
Regarding claim 20, Johnson discloses “An election system for maintaining election integrity in at least one jurisdiction, comprising: a content server, wherein the content server comprises: a data mapping and standards engine to receive information in a non-standardized format dependent on one or more hardware and software platforms from at least one election data source database containing information about elections in a non-standardized format(data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis. [par.0060]); and convert the non-standardized format into a standardized format(data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis. [par.0060]), a standardized source database to store the information about election data source records in the standardized format(data management Subsystem 105 may also advantageously aggregate election results data into Smaller Subsets that may be an improved condition for further analysis. [par.0060]), a compliance rules engine to compare the information in the standardized format with one or more compliance rules to identify one or more deficiencies in an election system” (the data reporting subsystem 107 may generate a report that may highlight the anomaly-containing data set as a candidate for further investigation of possible election fraud (Block 350) [par.0077]).
Johnson does not explicitly disclose “a compliance deficiency database to store one or more identified deficiencies in the election system and a compliance deficiency alerts and reporting engine to automatically generate a remedial message about the one or more identified deficiencies, and transmit the remedial message to a first user comprising an election personnel over a computer network in real time.”
However, Sebes in an analogous art discloses “a compliance deficiency database to store one or more identified deficiencies in the election system and a compliance deficiency alerts and reporting engine to automatically generate a remedial message about the one or more identified deficiencies”(administrator application Sebes [Fig.2/item 212]), and transmit the remedial message to a first user comprising an election personnel over a computer network in real time” (transmit voter check-in document into ballot request signal for transmission to voter roll through operations of digital pollbook Sebes[Fig.9/item 902]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Johnson’s fraud detection system with Sebe’s secure balloting system in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Johnson teaches voting fraud detection system which ensures a secure system, Sebes additionally discloses a secure balloting system which generates validated messages , and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571) 272-6798. 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.
/MICHAEL D ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433