DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a FIRST, NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION for Application #18/969,944, filed on 12/05/2024. This application claims priority to Application #17/858,848, filed on 07/06/2022.
Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–8 are directed to a process (“A method”), and claims 9–20 are directed to a machine (“A system” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Thus, claims 1–20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
receiving, by a verification service and from a first user, a first request to verify information associated with a second user, the information including at least identification information and financial information associated with the second user;
sending, by the verification service and to the second user, a second request to provide the identification information associated with the second user;
receiving, by the verification service and from the second user, the identification information;
sending, by the verification service and to the second user, a third request to authorize access to the financial information;
receiving, by the verification service and from the second user, a first indication that the second user authorized access to the financial information;
receiving, by the verification service . . ., the financial information associated with the second user;
verifying, by the verification service, an identity of the second user and an income associated with the second user based at least in part on the identification information and the financial information; and
sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a second indication that the identity of the second user and the income associated with the second user have been verified.
The claims, therefore, recite a verifying financial and identity information, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“open banking system”, “link”, “processors”, “computer-readable media”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium”). The claims also recite “performing one or more optical character recognition processes or one or more filtering algorithms to extract the identification information”. These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to send and receive requests and information, and then verify the results. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 17 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1. There are no additional elements recited in these claims other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“processors”, “computer-readable media”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium”). The only differences are that the steps of claim 1 are performed by a system in claim 9 and implemented by computer program instructions in claim 17. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claims 9 and 17 are also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–20 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2 and 18, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the verification recited in claims 1 and 17 by further specifying how the request is approved—“based at least in part on receiving the indication that the second user selected”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These claims do recite a link, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to receive user approval. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 3, 13, and 19, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the verification recited in claims 1, 9, and 17 by further specifying how the identification information is received—“image data associated with a government issued identification”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These claims do recite performing optical character recognition on the identification, but again, this process is also merely being used as a tool to obtain information. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 14, and 20, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the verification recited in claims 1, 9, and 17 by further specifying how the identity is verified—“determining that a first name associated with the identification information is a same name as a second name”. These dependent claims therefore also recite determining that names are matching, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because they recite an observation and evaluation that can be performed in the human mind.
For claims 5–6 and 11–12, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the verification recited in claims 1, 9, and 17 by further specifying what information is accessible—“first permissions . . . to a subset of the identification information”, and “second permissions . . . to a subset of the financial information”.
For claims 7 and 15, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the verification recited in claims 1, 9, and 17 by further specifying the types of information—“background information including at least one of a criminal record, education record, or employment history”.
For claims 8 and 16, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite performing a background check, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk.
For claim 10, the additional recited limitations of this claim are merely directed to an abstract idea. This dependent claim only recites approving a request for information, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because it recites the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9–12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hockey et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0028012 (“Hockey”).
For claim 9, Hockey teaches:
A system comprising (¶ 240: example system):
one or more processors (¶ 240: processors); and
one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (¶ 240: computer readable storage medium storing instructions executed by processor to perform functions):
receiving, by a verification service and from a first user, a first request to verify information associated with a first user, the information including at least identification information and financial information associated with the first user (¶ 80: subject query for access to own data; ¶ 87: data can be financial and private data);
sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a second request to provide the identification information associated with the first user (¶ 81: private data request to subject through data management platform);
receiving, by the verification service and from the first user, the identification information (¶ 81: private data provided after subject approves);
sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a third request to authorize access to the financial information (¶ 324–325: request for financial report access);
receiving, by the verification service and from the first user, a first indication that the first user authorized access to the financial information (¶ 325: user approves request through data management platform);
receiving, by the verification service and from an open banking system, the financial information associated with the first user (¶ 325: third party receives access to financial reports from data management platform); and
verifying, by the verification service, an identity of the first user and an income associated with the first user based at least in part on the identification information and the financial information (¶ 87: data requested to be verified is income and private identity data; ¶ 69: third party requests account data; ¶ 288: income verified).
For claim 10, Hockey teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above and further teaches:
The system of claim 9, the operations further comprising: receiving, by the verification service and from a second user, a fourth request to receive the information associated with the first user (¶ 317: financial report access request received from third-party system);
sending, by the verification service and to the first user, the fourth request (¶ 81: private data request to subject through data management platform);
receiving, by the verification service and from the first user, a second indication that the first user has approved the fourth request to send the information associated with the first user (¶ 325: user approves request through data management platform); and
sending, by the verification service and to the second user, the information (¶ 325: third party receives access to financial reports from data management platform).
For claim 11, Hockey teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above and further teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein receiving the identification information includes receiving first permissions associated with the identification information, the first permissions being set by the first user and granting the second user access to a subset of the identification information (¶ 82: subset of data matching request is provided based on subject approval).
For claim 12, Hockey teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above and further teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein receiving the first indication includes receiving second permissions associated with the financial information, the second permissions being set by the first user and granting the second user access to a subset of the financial information (¶ 82: subset of data matching request is provided based on subject approval).
For claim 15, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Hockey further teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the information further includes background information associated with the first user, the background information including at least one of a criminal record, education record, or employment history associated with the first user (¶ 87: data includes employment information).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1–7, 13, 14, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockey et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0028012 (“Hockey”) in view of Painter et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0204280 (“Painter”).
For claim 1, Hockey teaches:
A method comprising (¶ 261: example method):
receiving, by a verification service and from a first user, a first request to verify information associated with a second user, the information including at least identification information and financial information associated with the second user (¶ 317: financial report access request received from third-party system; ¶ 87: data can be financial and private data);
sending, by the verification service and to the second user, a second request to provide the identification information associated with the second user (¶ 81: private data request to subject through data management platform);
receiving, by the verification service and from the second user, the identification information (¶ 81: private data provided after subject approves);
sending, by the verification service and to the second user, a third request to authorize access to the financial information (¶ 324–325: request for financial report access);
receiving, by the verification service and from the second user, a first indication that the second user authorized access to the financial information (¶ 325: user approves request through data management platform);
receiving, by the verification service and from an open banking system, the financial information associated with the second user (¶ 325: third party receives access to financial reports from data management platform);
verifying, by the verification service, an identity of the second user and an income associated with the second user based at least in part on the identification information and the financial information (¶ 87: data requested to be verified is income and private identity data; ¶ 69: third party requests account data; ¶ 288: income verified) . . ..
Hockey does not teach: sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a second indication that the identity of the second user and the income associated with the second user have been verified.
Painter, however, teaches:
sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a second indication that the identity of the second user and the income associated with the second user have been verified (¶ 80, 99, 104–105: identification verification signal and income verification pass sent to client application).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the financial data request in Hockey by adding the verification alert from Painter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of making loan approval processes more efficient—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Painter (¶ 6–7: current financing methods require providing multiple documents and information which can be inefficient; ¶ 8: invention provides system for approving applications) and desired by Hockey (¶ 3: problem of accessing financial data, which can be time-consuming).
For claim 2, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Painter further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the verification service, a link based at least in part on the first request to verify the information (¶ 100: GUI control generated based on identification request); and
receiving, by the verification service, an indication that the second user selected the link, wherein sending the second request to the second user is based at least in part on receiving the indication that the second user selected the link (¶ 100: user interacts with GUI control to proceed with additional requests).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the financial data request in Hockey by adding the user selection from Painter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of making loan approval processes more efficient—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Painter (¶ 6–7: current financing methods require providing multiple documents and information which can be inefficient; ¶ 8: invention provides system for approving applications) and desired by Hockey (¶ 3: problem of accessing financial data, which can be time-consuming).
For claim 3, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Painter further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the identification information includes receiving image data associated with a government issued identification, and the method further comprises performing one or more optical character recognition processes or one or more filtering algorithms to extract the identification information from the image data associated with the government issued identification (¶ 97: OCR recognition used to extract information from government identification).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the financial data request in Hockey by adding the OCR from Painter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of making loan approval processes more efficient—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Painter (¶ 6–7: current financing methods require providing multiple documents and information which can be inefficient; ¶ 8: invention provides system for approving applications) and desired by Hockey (¶ 3: problem of accessing financial data, which can be time-consuming).
For claim 4, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Hockey further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein verifying the identity of the second user includes determining that a first name associated with the identification information is a same name as a second name associated with the financial information (¶ 87, 661: name used for confirmation).
For claim 5, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Hockey further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the identification information includes receiving first permissions associated with the identification information, the first permissions being set by the second user and granting the first user access to a subset of the identification information (¶ 82: subset of data matching request is provided based on subject approval).
For claim 6, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Hockey further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the first indication includes receiving second permissions associated with the financial information, the second permissions being set by the second user and granting the first user access to a subset of the financial information (¶ 82: subset of data matching request is provided based on subject approval).
For claim 7, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Hockey further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information further includes background information associated with the first user, the background information including at least one of a criminal record, education record, or employment history associated with the second user (¶ 87: data includes employment information).
For claim 13, Hockey teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above. Hockey does not teach: wherein receiving the identification information includes receiving image data associated with a government issued identification, and the operations further comprise performing one or more optical character recognition processes or one or more filtering algorithms to extract the identification information from the image data associated with the government issued identification.
Painter, however, teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein receiving the identification information includes receiving image data associated with a government issued identification, and the operations further comprise performing one or more optical character recognition processes or one or more filtering algorithms to extract the identification information from the image data associated with the government issued identification (¶ 97: OCR recognition used to extract information from government identification).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the financial data request in Hockey by adding the OCR from Painter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of making loan approval processes more efficient—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Painter (¶ 6–7: current financing methods require providing multiple documents and information which can be inefficient; ¶ 8: invention provides system for approving applications) and desired by Hockey (¶ 3: problem of accessing financial data, which can be time-consuming).
For claim 14, Hockey teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above. Hockey does not teach: wherein verifying the identity of the first user includes determining that a first name associated with the identification information is a same name as a second name associated with the financial information.
Painter, however, teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein verifying the identity of the first user includes determining that a first name associated with the identification information is a same name as a second name associated with the financial information (¶ 87, 661: name used for confirmation).
For claim 17, Hockey teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (¶ 240: computer readable storage medium storing instructions executed by processor to perform functions):
receiving, by a verification service and from a first user, a first request to verify information associated with a second user, the information including at least identification information and financial information associated with the second user (¶ 317: financial report access request received from third-party system; ¶ 87: data can be financial and private data);
sending, by the verification service and to the second user, a second request to provide the identification information associated with the second user (¶ 81: private data request to subject through data management platform);
receiving, by the verification service and from the second user, the identification information (¶ 81: private data provided after subject approves);
sending, by the verification service and to the second user, a third request to authorize access to the financial information (¶ 324–325: request for financial report access);
receiving, by the verification service and from the second user, a first indication that the second user authorized access to the financial information (¶ 325: user approves request through data management platform);
receiving, by the verification service and from an open banking system, the financial information associated with the second user (¶ 325: third party receives access to financial reports from data management platform);
verifying, by the verification service, an identity of the second user and an income associated with the second user based at least in part on the identification information and the financial information (¶ 87: data requested to be verified is income and private identity data; ¶ 69: third party requests account data; ¶ 288: income verified) . . ..
Hockey does not teach: sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a second indication that the identity of the second user and the income associated with the second user have been verified.
Painter, however, teaches:
sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a second indication that the identity of the second user and the income associated with the second user have been verified (¶ 80, 99, 104–105: identification verification signal and income verification pass sent to client application).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the financial data request in Hockey by adding the verification alert from Painter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of making loan approval processes more efficient—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Painter (¶ 6–7: current financing methods require providing multiple documents and information which can be inefficient; ¶ 8: invention provides system for approving applications) and desired by Hockey (¶ 3: problem of accessing financial data, which can be time-consuming).
For claim 18, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 17 above, and Painter further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, the operations further comprising: generating, by the verification service, a link based at least in part on the first request to verify the information (¶ 100: GUI control generated based on identification request); and
receiving, by the verification service, an indication that the second user selected the link, wherein sending the second request to the second user is based at least in part on receiving the indication that the second user selected the link (¶ 100: user interacts with GUI control to proceed with additional requests).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the financial data request in Hockey by adding the user selection from Painter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of making loan approval processes more efficient—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Painter (¶ 6–7: current financing methods require providing multiple documents and information which can be inefficient; ¶ 8: invention provides system for approving applications) and desired by Hockey (¶ 3: problem of accessing financial data, which can be time-consuming).
For claim 19, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 17 above, and Painter further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein receiving the identification information includes receiving image data associated with a government issued identification, and the operations further comprise performing one or more optical character recognition processes or one or more filtering algorithms to extract the identification information from the image data associated with the government issued identification (¶ 97: OCR recognition used to extract information from government identification).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the financial data request in Hockey by adding the OCR from Painter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of making loan approval processes more efficient—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Painter (¶ 6–7: current financing methods require providing multiple documents and information which can be inefficient; ¶ 8: invention provides system for approving applications) and desired by Hockey (¶ 3: problem of accessing financial data, which can be time-consuming).
For claim 20, Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 17 above, and Hockey further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein verifying the identity of the second user includes determining that a first name associated with the identification information is a same name as a second name associated with the financial information (¶ 87, 661: name used for confirmation).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockey et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0028012 (“Hockey”) in view of Painter et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0204280 (“Painter”) and Levine et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0223192 (“Levine”).
Hockey and Painter teach all the limitations of claim 7 above. The combination of Hockey and Painter does not teach: sending, by the verification service and to the second user, a fourth request to authorize a background check to be conducted for the second user; receiving, by the verification service and from the second user, a third indication that the second user authorized the background check to be conducted; sending, by the verification service and to a background check service, a fifth request to conduct the background check to be conducted for the second user; receiving, by the verification service and from the background check service, a report including results of the background check; and sending, by the verification service and to the first user, the report.
Levine, however, teaches:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: sending, by the verification service and to the second user, a fourth request to authorize a background check to be conducted for the second user (¶ 80: third party requests preverification report for member to authorize; ¶ 71: preverification report is form of background check);
receiving, by the verification service and from the second user, a third indication that the second user authorized the background check to be conducted (¶ 80: member authorizes preverification report);
sending, by the verification service and to a background check service, a fifth request to conduct the background check to be conducted for the second user (¶ 93: requestor request preverification report order);
receiving, by the verification service and from the background check service, a report including results of the background check (¶ 80: preverification report order completed); and
sending, by the verification service and to the first user, the report (¶ 80: alert sent to requestor for viewing completed preverification report order).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the financial data request in Hockey and the verification alert in Painter by adding the preverification report from Levine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of making background search and verification more secure and efficient—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Levine (¶ 4: current methods lack security and are inefficient for example because they require disclosing highly sensitive information or require manual verification of details; ¶ 6: invention provides more effective means for providing background information) and desired by Hockey (¶ 3: problem of sharing private data in secure manner with other parties). Hockey, Painter, and Levine are all related to verifying user information, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this verification even more secure by combining these methods together.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockey et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0028012 (“Hockey”) in view of Levine et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2010/0223192 (“Levine”).
Hockey teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above. Hockey does not teach: sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a fourth request to authorize a background check to be conducted for the first user; receiving, by the verification service and from the first user, a third indication that the first user authorized the background check to be conducted; sending, by the verification service and to a background check service, a fifth request to conduct the background check to be conducted for the first user; receiving, by the verification service and from the background check service, a report including results of the background check; and sending, by the verification service and to a second user, the report.
Levine, however, teaches:
The system of claim 15, the operations further comprising: sending, by the verification service and to the first user, a fourth request to authorize a background check to be conducted for the first user (¶ 80: third party requests pre-verification report for member to authorize; ¶ 71: pre-verification report is form of background check);
receiving, by the verification service and from the first user, a third indication that the first user authorized the background check to be conducted (¶ 80: member authorizes pre-verification report);
sending, by the verification service and to a background check service, a fifth request to conduct the background check to be conducted for the first user (¶ 93: requestor request pre-verification report order);
receiving, by the verification service and from the background check service, a report including results of the background check (¶ 80: pre-verification report order completed); and
sending, by the verification service and to a second user, the report (¶ 80: alert sent to requestor for viewing completed pre-verification report order).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the financial data request in Hockey by adding the pre-verification report from Levine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of making background search and verification more secure and efficient—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Levine (¶ 4: current methods lack security and are inefficient for example because they require disclosing highly sensitive information or require manual verification of details; ¶ 6: invention provides more effective means for providing background information) and desired by Hockey (¶ 3: problem of sharing private data in secure manner with other parties).
Conclusion
The following prior art references were not relied upon in this Office Action but are considered pertinent to the applicant’s invention:
Weinflash et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0086263, discloses access requests for a database for storing account data.
Boland, U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0068608, discloses requesting identity information for a user for verification.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3435.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights