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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11-25-2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 is redundant with claim 1, lines 15-21.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro Jimenez (US#6824043) in view of Baumert et al. (US#2011/0017823).
Regarding claim 1, Navarro Jimenez discloses a system, comprising:
a ballot box (Fig. 1) including:
an entrance portal (opening adjacent scanner 5) in communication with a container (ballot box housing) configured to receive a ballot envelope 14 (col. 3, lines 45-47, 54-60);
a scanner system 5 configured to extract ballot information from the ballot envelope upon receipt of the ballot envelope at the entrance portal (col. 3, lines 45-47, 54-60); and
a computing system 3 (Fig. 2, microprocessor) in communication with the scanner system that accesses voter information and records the ballot information (col. 3, lines 39-44), wherein the ballot box accommodates secure receipt of the ballot envelope and verification of the voter information for improved ballot receipt and tracking (e.g. counting, transmitting results, etc., see claim 8) during a voting process.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Navarro Jimenez fails to specifically disclose the ballot information including a timestamp, wherein the computing system is configured to determine, based on the timestamp and a previous timestamp associated with receipt of a previous ballot envelope at the ballot box, that the ballot envelope was received within a predetermined interval of time after the previous ballot envelope, and to generate a flag associated with a potential mass ballot drop-off event in response to the determination. However, as evidenced by Baumert, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see [0109]-[0110], wherein system 10 records ballot information including a timestamp, wherein a computing system 71 (processor) thereof is configured to determine, based on the timestamp and a previous timestamp associated with receipt of a previous ballot at the ballot box, that the ballot was received within a predetermined interval of time after the previous ballot, and to generate a flag (i.e. determine a cause of action) in response to the determination. Per [0109] of Baumert, “…system 10 automatically determines whether the results of newly scanned ballots should be added to a preexisting election results database, or, whether the results of the newly scanned ballots should replace the results in the preexisting database. This determination is made based on date/time stamps that are added to every ballot record and ballot image. For every batch of scanned ballots, the system saves a date/time stamp of when the first ballot was scanned and when the last ballot was scanned to establish a session window for that batch of ballots.” Per [0110] of Baumert, the above configuration “eliminates the possibility of user error.” Therefore, as evidenced by Baumert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Navarro Jimenez such that the ballot information includes a timestamp, wherein the computing system is configured to determine, based on the timestamp and a previous timestamp associated with receipt of a previous ballot envelope at the ballot box, that the ballot envelope was received within a predetermined interval of time after the previous ballot envelope, and to generate a flag in response to the determination. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the ballot information including a timestamp, wherein the computing system is configured to determine, based on the timestamp and a previous timestamp associated with receipt of a previous ballot envelope at the ballot box, that the ballot envelope was received within a predetermined interval of time after the previous ballot envelope, and to generate a flag in response to the determination, would reduce user error and enhance accuracy.
Further, claim 1 is an article claim drawn to a system and determining “a potential mass ballot drop-off event” represents the intended use of the claimed system. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Navarro Jimenez as modified by Baumert discloses all the claimed structure of the system as discussed above in detail and is thus inherently capable of determining “a potential mass ballot drop-off event”.
Regarding claim 4, Navarro Jimenez discloses further comprising an external entity computing system (central computer, col. 3, lines 31-34) in communication via MODEM 11 with the computing system of the ballot box, wherein the computing system of the ballot box is operable to communicate the ballot information and the timestamp (as taught by Baumert) to the external entity computing system.
Regarding claim 12, Navarro Jimenez discloses wherein the computing system further includes one or more nonvolatile memory units (hard disk 9 or PCMCIA card 10 for data storage) operable for storing the timestamp (taught by Baumert), the ballot information, and/or voter identification information.
Regarding claim 13, Navarro Jimenez discloses wherein the computing system includes two or more nonvolatile memory units (hard disk 9 and PCMCIA card 10) in differing positions along the ballot box as the hard disk 9 and card 10 are two distinct units thus occupying two distinct (different) positions.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro Jimenez (US#6824043) in view of Baumert et al. (US#2011/0017823), and further in view of Roger et al. (US#8840022).
Regarding claim 2, Navarro Jimenez discloses a single scanner system as opposed to a first scanner configured to scan a first side of the ballot envelope and a second scanner configured to scan a second side of the ballot envelope. However, as evidenced by Roger, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see ballot system 10, col. 5, lines 27-34, and scanner system 50 including a first scanner configured to scan a first side (top) of the ballot and a second scanner configured to scan a second side (bottom) of the ballot. Therefore, as evidenced by Roger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Navarro Jimenez by replacing its single scanner system with a first scanner configured to scan a first side (top) of the ballot envelope and a second scanner configured to scan a second side (bottom) of the ballot envelope. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of a first scanner configured to scan a first side (top) of the ballot envelope and a second scanner configured to scan a second side (bottom) of the ballot envelope would allow for additional data recording and/or alternate insertion orientations of the envelope.
Claims 5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro Jimenez (US#6824043) in view of Baumert et al. (US#2011/0017823), and further in view of Johnson (US#2005/0218225).
Regarding claim 5, Navarro Jimenez fails to disclose wherein the external entity computing system is operable to retrieve voter information from a voting information database based on the ballot information and/or based on voter identification information. However, as evidenced by Johnson, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see [0028] and Fig. 7 wherein external entity computing system 710 is operable to retrieve voter information from a voting information database 708 based on the ballot information and/or based on voter identification information. Therefore, as evidenced by Johnson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Navarro Jimenez such that the external entity computing system is operable to retrieve voter information from a voting information database based on the ballot information and/or based on voter identification information. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the voting information database would enhance election integrity.
Regarding claim 9, Navarro Jimenez fails to disclose a card reader system, wherein the card reader system is operable for capturing voter identification information from a voter identification card. However, as evidenced by Johnson, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 2, Fig. 6 (step S66), and ballot system 200 comprising a card reader system (claim 10), wherein the card reader system is operable for capturing voter identification information from a voter identification card 214. Therefore, as evidenced by Johnson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Navarro Jimenez to include a card reader system, wherein the card reader system is operable for capturing voter identification information from a voter identification card. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion a card reader system, wherein the card reader system is operable for capturing voter identification information from a voter identification card, would enhance election integrity and deter voter fraud.
Regarding claim 11, Johnson teaches the card reader system includes a magnetic stripe reader operable for capturing voter identification information from a magnetic stripe present on the voter identification card associated with the voter ([0026], claim 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro Jimenez (US#6824043) in view of Baumert et al. (US#2011/0017823), and further in view of Ashcoff et al. (US#2021/0398379).
Regarding claim 6, Navarro Jimenez fails to disclose wherein the external entity computing system is operable to send a confirmation message to a voter that includes the timestamp and an identifier associated with the ballot box. However, as evidenced by Ashcoff, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see [0098], Fig. 6, Fig. 8 step 828, and system 200 wherein a computing system 202/204 wirelessly sends via network 208 a confirmation message to a voter’s mobile device 206. Therefore, as evidenced by Ashcoff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Navarro Jimenez such that the external entity computing system is operable to send a confirmation message to a voter. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the voter’s mobile device in communication with the external entity computing system to receive a confirmation message would enhance election integrity. As discussed previously, Navarro Jimenez discloses ballot box information, while Baumert teaches timestamp information, and these specific forms of information would be able to be received by the user’s mobile device taught by Ashcoff.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro Jimenez (US#6824043) in view of Baumert et al. (US#2011/0017823), and further in view of Brucker et al. (US#2006/0060649).
Regarding claim 7, Navarro Jimenez fails to disclose wherein the ballot box further includes a diverter mechanism that diverts a ballot envelope to a sub-container when the scanner system fails to extract the ballot information from the ballot envelope. However, as evidenced by Brucker, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see [0082] and Fig. 8, wherein diverter mechanism 396 diverts a ballot envelope 510 to a sub-container 460 when the scanner system fails to extract the ballot information from the ballot envelope. Therefore, as evidenced by Brucker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Navarro Jimenez such that the ballot box includes a diverter mechanism that diverts a ballot envelope to a sub-container when the scanner system fails to extract the ballot information from the ballot envelope. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a diverter mechanism that diverts a ballot envelope to a sub-container when the scanner system fails to extract the ballot information from the ballot envelope would facilitate and simplify post-tabulation ballot handling for the polling operators.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro Jimenez (US#6824043) in view of Baumert et al. (US#2011/0017823), and further in view of Ogram (US#11776344).
Regarding claim 8, Navarro Jimenez fails to disclose one or more cameras, wherein the one or more cameras are operable for capturing an image of a person interacting with the ballot box. However, as evidenced by Ogram, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see col. 2, lines 62-64, and cameras for monitoring the ballot box 10. Therefore, as evidenced by Ogram, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Navarro Jimenez by including one or more cameras, wherein the one or more cameras are operable for capturing an image of a person interacting with the ballot box. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of one or more cameras, wherein the one or more cameras are operable for capturing an image of a person would enhance election integrity.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro Jimenez (US#6824043) in view of Baumert et al. (US#2011/0017823), in view of Davis et al. (US#11062546).
Regarding claim 9, Navarro Jimenez fails to disclose a card reader system, wherein the card reader system is operable for capturing voter identification information from a voter identification card. However, as evidenced by Davis, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 3, ballot system 300 comprising a card reader system (col. 7, lines 32-37), wherein the card reader system is operable for capturing voter identification information from a voter identification card 204. Therefore, as evidenced by Davis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Navarro Jimenez to include a card reader system, wherein the card reader system is operable for capturing voter identification information from a voter identification card. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion a card reader system, wherein the card reader system is operable for capturing voter identification information from a voter identification card, would enhance election integrity and deter voter fraud.
Regarding claim 10, Davis teaches wherein the card reader system includes a barcode reader operable for capturing voter identification information from a barcode present on the voter identification card associated with the voter (col. 7, lines 32-37).
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues the following:
“In particular, the Office Action does not identify any teaching or suggestion in Navarro Jimenez of determining, based on a timestamp associated with receipt of a ballot envelope at a ballot box and a previous timestamp associated with receipt of a previous ballot envelope at the ballot box, that the ballot envelope was received within a predetermined interval of time after the previous ballot envelope, and generating a flag associated with a potential mass ballot drop-off event in response to that determination - as presently recited in amended claim 1.
Baumert does not cure this deficiency. The Office Action relies on Baumert for recording ballot information including a timestamp and further asserts that Baumert teaches "flagging" new ballots within predetermined intervals of time with respect to previous ballots, for example for determining whether to add to or replace previous ballots. But amended claim 1 is not directed merely to timestamping ballot information or determining whether one ballot should add to or replace another ballot. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a particular drop-box receipt-event monitoring arrangement in which a computing system compares receipt timestamps associated with physical ballot envelopes received at the ballot box and generates a flag associated with a potential mass ballot drop-off event when the timing of receipt satisfies the claimed predetermined-interval condition.
Accordingly, the alleged add-or-replace logic of Baumert is materially different from the claimed timing-based monitoring of ballot-envelope receipt events at a ballot box. The Office Action has not shown that Baumert teaches or suggests using receipt timestamps associated with physical ballot envelopes received at a ballot box to identify clustered receipt of ballot envelopes and generate a flag associated with a potential mass ballot drop-off event.
Respectfully, the Applicant further submits the Office Action also has not provided an adequate reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Navarro Jimenez in view of Baumert to arrive at amended claim 1. The Office Action's rationale for adding timestamp information is that doing so would reduce user error and prevent tampering. However, amended claim 1 is not directed merely to adding a timestamp. Amended claim 1 recites using receipt timestamps in a specific way to monitor timing between ballot-envelope receipt events at a ballot box and generate a flag associated with a potential mass ballot drop- off event. The Office Action does not explain why the asserted benefits of Baumert would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Navarro Jimenez to perform the claimed receipt- event comparison and flagging operation.”
The examiner agrees Navarro Jimenez fails to specifically disclose the ballot information including a timestamp, wherein the computing system is configured to determine, based on the timestamp and a previous timestamp associated with receipt of a previous ballot envelope at the ballot box, that the ballot envelope was received within a predetermined interval of time after the previous ballot envelope, and to generate a flag associated with a potential mass ballot drop-off event in response to the determination. However, the system 10 of Baumert and its computing system 71 (processor) cures this deficiency via an analysis of timestamps and an associated determination of a cause of action, i.e. “generate a flag”.
Per [0109] of Baumert, “…system 10 automatically determines whether the results of newly scanned ballots should be added to a preexisting election results database, or, whether the results of the newly scanned ballots should replace the results in the preexisting database. This determination is made based on date/time stamps that are added to every ballot record and ballot image. For every batch of scanned ballots, the system saves a date/time stamp of when the first ballot was scanned and when the last ballot was scanned to establish a session window for that batch of ballots.” Per [0110] of Baumert, the above configuration “eliminates the possibility of user error.” One of ordinary skill in the art would consider the teachings of Baumert in an effort to improve the system of Navarro Jimenez, namely to reduce user error and thus enhance accuracy.
Further, claim 1 is an article claim drawn to a system and determining “a potential mass ballot drop-off event” represents the intended use of the claimed system. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Navarro Jimenez as modified by Baumert discloses all the claimed structure of the system as discussed above in detail and is thus inherently capable of determining “a potential mass ballot drop-off event”. While Baumert does explicitly discuss in [0110] add or replace logic as argued by the applicant, Baumert also invites the use of other logic as [0110] states, “System 10 is also able to determine what cause of action to take if the date/time stamps of the various files are different than in the two scenarios described above.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted Herskowitz (US#6971574) discloses in col. 4, lines 50-58, a similar system wherein “Internal tampering may also involve entering fraudulent votes after the closing of the polls. This process can be described as stuffing of ballot boxes and can be deterred by causing the data processor to enter any and all time-stamped after-hours ballot choices into an invalid vote time-of-vote register. This feature can further aid in deterring fraud in the election process. The time stamp is preferably encrypted by a secret algorithm to further deter a hacker from using a false time-stamp value that is within the polling hours.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights