DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's communications received on December 11, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. Any claim that only contains subject matter that is fully supported in compliance with the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the parent application of a CIP will have the effective filing date of the parent application. On the other hand, any claim that contains a limitation that is only supported as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the disclosure of the CIP application will have the effective filing date of the CIP application. See MPEP 2152.01.
In this instance, the disclosure of the parent application of the CIP (i.e., 16/529,293) and the disclosures of the prior-filed priority applications (i.e., 15/604,372, 14/722,058, and 62/004,101) all fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for one or more claims/limitations/elements of this application. The limitations/elements unsupported by the 16/529,293, 15/604,372, 14/722,058, and 62/004,101 applications include:
generating a user identity packet by: verifying that data stored on a near-field communication (NFC) chip of an identification document has not been tampered with, and confirming an identity of an owner of the identification document using both a current biometric and a baseline biometric stored on the NFC chip, in claims 1 and 11;
storing the user identity packet on a mobile device, in claims 1 and 11; and
providing the user identity packet in place of the identification document when a requester has asked for the identification document, in claim 1 and 11.
Examiner notes that the 16/529,293, 15/604,372, 14/722,058, and 62/004,101 applications fail to disclose the use (e.g., storing and/or providing), or generation of, a user identity packet. The “user identity packet” is first disclosed in the 16/917,776 application, filed on June 30, 2020. It is further noted that the 16/529,293 disclosure only recites the term “NFC” three times. See ‘293 Specification [0006]; [0022]; [0032]. In these paragraphs the disclosure merely indicates, at a high level of generality, that a client device can include an NFC reader and that the NFC reader can be used to scan an RFID chip. Id.
Since the 16/529,293, 15/604,372, 14/722,058, and 62/004,101 applications fail to provide adequate support or enablement for independent claims 1 and 11, independent claims 1 and 11 are not entitled to the effective filing date of the 16/529,293, 15/604,372, 14/722,058, and 62/004,101 applications. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not entitled to the effective filing date of the 16/529,293, 15/604,372, 14/722,058, and 62/004,101 applications due to their dependency on claim 1 or 11. Accordingly, claims 1-20 have been given the effective filing date of the 16/917,776 application, filed on June 30, 2020.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on December 11, 2024 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 3/27/2025, 6/27/2025, 9/16/2025 and 12/26/2025 are in compliance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Non-Functional and Language:
The claim 5 and 15 phrase which recites “wherein the baseline biometric data is stored on the NFC chip by an issuing authority of the identification document” is non-functional descriptive material as it only describes, at least in part, characteristics of the baseline biometric data (e.g., who stored the data on the NFC chip). The fact that the baseline biometric data is stored on the NFC chip by an issuing authority fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed. For example, there is no indication that the identity of the owner of the identification document is confirmed differently simply because a certain entity stored the data on the NFC chip. It is also noted that the claimed invention is not positively reciting a step where it is verified that data stored on the chip was stored by a particular entity. Likewise, the claimed invention is not positively reciting a step of storing, by an issuing authority, baseline biometric data on the NFC chip.
The claim 6 and 16 phrase which recites “wherein the baseline biometric data is first obtained when the owner of the identification document applies for or obtains the identification document” is non-functional descriptive material as it only describes, at least in part, characteristics of the based line biometric data (e.g., when it was first obtained). The fact that the baseline biometric data was obtained at a particular time fails to affect how any of the positively recited steps are performed.
It has been held that non-functional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, it is determined that the claims 1-10 are directed to the statutory category of a process and claims 11-20 are directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
generating a user identity packet by:
verifying that data stored on a near-field communication (NFC) chip of an identification document has not been tampered with; and
confirming an identity of an owner of the identification document using both a current biometric and a baseline biometric stored on the NFC chip;
storing the user identity packet on a mobile device; and
providing the user identity packet in place of the identification document when a requester has asked for the identification document.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of validating user information, generating and storing an indication the user information has been validated, and subsequently providing the indication of validation when a request for user information is received. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interaction (e.g., managing interactions between a verifying entity and an owner of the ID document, and/or a commercial/legal interaction of validating a user identity, etc.). This recited process is similar to the business/legal process of applying for a driver’s license or passport. Just as supporting documents (e.g., birth certificates, drivers licenses, evidence of passing a driving test, paperwork showing residency information, etc.) are examined in the driver’s license and passport application process, here the claimed invention verifies and confirms various supporting information (e.g., NFC chip information, identity data, biometric data, etc.) prior to issuing/generating the identity packet. Similarly, after a user obtains a driver’s license or passport, they typically do not need to show the supporting documents when asked to prove they are authorized to drive or travel, rather they simply provide the passport/driver’s license. Here, the claimed invention applies the same concept by presenting the identity packet when asked for future verification of their identity. Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F .3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear that the claim(s) focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field. It is further noted that, the performance of the one or more process steps using a generic computer component (e.g., a user device, a processor, etc.) does not preclude the claim limitation(s) from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In this instance, claim 1 fails to recite any additional elements, accordingly there are no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor.
The processor and memory recited in claim 11 are both recited at a high-level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims’ use of the processor and memory does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application because the claims do not require any nonconventional computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for the performance of the abstract idea on a generic computing/processing device. Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any specialized programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible."). Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the computing components in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the computing components, or another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed (i.e., provide an inventive concept). MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a processor, a memory, etc.) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and/or system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and/or system cannot provide an inventive concept. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 12 refine the abstract idea by instructing a user to provide a current biometric data (i.e., this is part of a data collection process). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 refine the abstract idea by describing additional data/information that is collected and verified. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 14 refine the abstract idea by describing the type of data that is used to confirm the identity of the owner of the ID document. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 refine the abstract idea by describing the data stored on the NFC chip (e.g., what type of data it is, when the data was obtained, etc.). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 17 refine the abstract idea by describing how the data used for comparison is obtained (e.g., by extracting data from the NFC chip). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 refine the abstract idea by describing how the baseline data is confirmed. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 9 and 19 refine the abstract idea by describing the type of identification document used in implementing the abstract idea. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 and 20 refine the abstract idea by describing, at a high level of generality, how the identity pack is stored (e.g., in an encrypted manner). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loughlin-McHugh et al. (US 2016/0239657 A1) (hereinafter “McHugh”) in view of Anantha et al. (US 2012/0144201 A1) (hereinafter “Anantha”).Regarding Claims 1 and 11: McHugh discloses:
Claim 1: A method, comprising:Claim 11: A device, comprising:
a processor (See at least McHugh [0046] “at least one processor 114”; Fig. 1a); and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor (See at least McHugh [0046] “at least one processor 114 executing identity management code, and electronic storage components providing secure storage. There can be multiple processors in a distributed micro processing network, or a central processing unit at a single or multiple servers. The electronic storage components can take any form and may be local or remote memory.”; Fig. 1a) to perform a method comprising:
generating a user identity packet by (See at least McHugh [0220]; [0546]; [0548]; [0564]. McHugh discloses generating a user identity packet (i.e., credential) by:):
verifying that data stored on a near-field communication (NFC) chip of an identification document has not been tampered with (See at least McHugh [0182]; [0197-0199]; [0217]; also see [0064-0071] which describes how the data from the identity document (e.g., electronic passport) can be collected in a trusted manner. McHugh discloses verifying that data (i.e., NFC data, e.g., identity data, a photo) stored on a near-field communication (NFC) chip (i.e., NFC chip) of an identification document (i.e., identity document) has not been tampered with (e.g., where it is verified that data has not been tampered with when data returned from an OCR of the identity document matches data in the NFC chip and/or when a photo extracted from the NFC chip matches a selfie of the registrant).); and
confirming an identity of an owner of the identification document using both a current biometric and a baseline biometric stored on the NFC chip (See at least McHugh [0061]; [0181-0185]; [0197-0199]; [0217]; Fig. 11A. McHugh discloses confirming an identity of an owner of the identification document (i.e., identity document) using both a current biometric (i.e., a selfie/confirmation photograph) and a baseline biometric stored on the NFC chip (i.e., embedded photograph/a photo extracted from the NFC chip).);
storing the user identity packet on a mobile device (See at least McHugh [0053]. McHugh discloses storing the user identity packet (i.e., credential) on a mobile device.); and
providing the user identity packet in place of the identification document (See at least McHugh [0006]; [0057]; [0146-0147]; [0391-0392]. McHugh discloses providing the user identity packet (i.e., credential) in place of the identification document (i.e., identity document, e.g., passport or equivalent document used to support identity).).
As indicated above, McHugh discloses providing the user identity packet (i.e., credential) in place of the identification document (i.e., identity document, e.g., passport or equivalent document used to support identity). McHugh [0006]; [0057]; [0146-0147]; [0391-0392]. McHugh differs slightly from the claimed invention because McHugh does not explicitly disclose that the user identity packet is provided “when a requester has asked for the identification document.”
Anantha, on the other hand, teaches providing the user identity packet in place of the identification document when a requester has asked for the identification document (See at least Anantha [0040]; [0067-0068]; Fig. 7 item 708. Anantha teaches providing (i.e., communicating) the user identity packet (i.e., credentials) in place of the identification document (i.e., instead of the passport) when a requester has asked for the identification document (i.e., when a requestor (e.g., an immigration device/service) has demanded the passport).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McHugh’s method, which provides a credential in place of an identity document (e.g., a passport), to include the teachings of Anantha. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to allow a user to authenticate themselves via a mobile communication device upon demand of a requestor (Anantha [0067-0068]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12: The combination of McHugh and Anantha discloses the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11. McHugh further discloses providing instructions to the owner of the identification document to obtain the current biometric using the mobile device (See at least McHugh [0061]; [0078]; [0157]; [0173]; [0181]; [0183]; [0185]; Fig. 11A “Take a selfie”. McHugh discloses providing instructions to the owner of the identification document (i.e., to the registrant) to obtain the current biometric (i.e., selfie) using the mobile device (i.e., using an app on their smartphone or table).).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13: The combination of McHugh and Anantha discloses the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11. McHugh further discloses receiving the current biometric from the mobile device and evaluating the current biometric (See at least McHugh [0061]; [0167]; [0181-0185]; [0197-0199]; [0217]. McHugh discloses receiving the current biometric (i.e., selfie/confirmation photograph) from the mobile device and evaluating the current biometric (e.g., by comparing the photo extracted from the passport scan, and/or the photo extracted from the NFC data, to the selfie/confirmation photograph).).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14: The combination of McHugh and Anantha discloses the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11. McHugh further discloses wherein the current biometric comprises one of a selfie, a photograph, a retinal scan, an iris scan, a fingerprint, or other biometric data (See at least McHugh [0061]; [0181-0185]; [0197-0199]; [0217]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15: The combination of McHugh and Anantha discloses the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11. McHugh further discloses wherein the baseline biometric data is stored on the NFC chip by an issuing authority of the identification document (See at least McHugh [0005]; [0012]; [0052]; [0064]; [0195]; [0197]; Fig. 5. McHugh discloses wherein the baseline biometric data (i.e., photo extracted from the NFC chip) is stored on the NFC chip by an issuing authority of the identification document (i.e., by a government institution).).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17: The combination of McHugh and Anantha discloses the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11. McHugh further discloses wherein confirming an identity of an owner of the identification document using both a current biometric and a baseline biometric stored on the NFC chip further comprises extracting the baseline biometric from the NFC chip (See at least McHugh [0061]; [0197-0199]; [0217]. McHugh discloses wherein confirming an identity of an owner of the identification document (i.e., identity document) using both a current biometric (i.e., a selfie/confirmation photograph) and a baseline biometric stored on the NFC chip (i.e., embedded photograph/a photo extracted from the NFC chip) further comprises extracting the baseline biometric from the NFC chip (i.e., extract relevant data (e.g., a photo) from the NFC chip).).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18: The combination of McHugh and Anantha discloses the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11. McHugh further discloses wherein confirming an identity of an owner of the identification document using both a current biometric and a baseline biometric stored on the NFC chip further comprises evaluating the baseline biometric to confirm the identity of the owner of the identification document (See at least McHugh [0061]; [0167]; [0197-0199]; [0217]. McHugh discloses wherein confirming an identity of an owner of the identification document (i.e., identity document) using both a current biometric (i.e., a selfie/confirmation photograph) and a baseline biometric stored on the NFC chip (i.e., embedded photograph/a photo extracted from the NFC chip) further comprises evaluating the current biometric to confirm the identity of the owner of the identification document (e.g., by comparing the photo extracted from the passport scan, and/or the photo extracted from the NFC data, to the selfie/confirmation photograph).).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19: The combination of McHugh and Anantha discloses the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11. McHugh further discloses wherein the identification document is one of a biometric passport, a digital passport, a passport, a government issued ID, and a drivers' license (See at least McHugh [0006]; [0012]; [0052]; [0087]; [0474]. McHugh discloses wherein the identification document (i.e., identity document) is one of a biometric passport, a digital passport (i.e., electronic passport), a passport (i.e., passport), a government issued ID (e.g., passport, driving license), and a drivers' license (i.e., driving license).).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20: The combination of McHugh and Anantha discloses the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11. As indicated above, McHugh discloses storing the user identity packet (i.e., credential) on a mobile device. McHugh [0053]. However, McHugh does not explicitly disclose wherein the storing of the user identity packet on the mobile device is performed in an encrypted manner.
Anantha, on the other hand, further teaches wherein the storing of the user identity packet on the mobile device is performed in an encrypted manner (See at least Anantha [0047]; [0058-0059]; [0062]; Fig. 2; Fig. 5. Anantha further teaches wherein the storing of the user identity packet (i.e., credential) on the mobile device (i.e., on the mobile communication device) is performed in an encrypted manner (e.g., by providing the encrypted credential to the secure element library, and/or by providing the credential in an encrypted form to the mobile device and only decrypting the credential once it is inside the secure element).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McHugh’s method, which stores a user identity packet (i.e., credential) on a mobile device, to include the teachings of Anantha. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to securely store a credential within a secure element without exposing the credential to malicious parties (Anantha [0063]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh in view of Anantha, as applied above, and further in view of Sajkowsky (US 2009/0266882 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16: The combination of McHugh and Anantha discloses the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11. McHugh indicates that the baseline biometric data (i.e., photo extracted from the NFC chip) is stored on the NFC chip by an issuing authority of the identification document (i.e., by a government institution). McHugh [0005]; [0012]; [0052]; [0064]; [0195]; [0197]; Fig. 5. However, McHugh does not explicitly disclose wherein the baseline biometric data is first obtained when the owner of the identification document applies for or obtains the identification document.
Sajkowsky, on the other hand, teaches wherein the baseline biometric data is first obtained when the owner of the identification document applies for or obtains the identification document (See at least Sajkowsky [0070]; [0072]; [0074]; Fig. 11 Step 212; Fig. 13 step 312. Sajkowsky teaches wherein the baseline biometric data (e.g., fingerprint, photograph) is first obtained when the owner of the identification document (e.g., foreign visitor with a smart visa, traveler with a smart passport) applies for or obtains the identification document (e.g., the smart visa, smart passport).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McHugh’s method, which uses a government authority to store baseline biometric data (i.e., photo extracted from the NFC chip) on an NFC chip, to include the teachings of Sajkowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features so that identifying information of the user/visitor/traveler can be permanently encase/embedded in the identification card (e.g., passport) (Sajkowsky [0028]; [0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Natale et al. (US 2014/0270400 A1) discloses where data/information (i.e. an electronic record) is obtained/extracted from a near-field communications (NFC) chip (i.e. from an NFC chip embedded inside a travel document) and the NFC chip is subsequently validated by validating the data contained in the NFC chip (e.g., by comparing the obtained/extracted travel document information to a list of passengers registered for the flight). Natale [0008-0010]; [0040-0042]; [0045]; [0047]; [0050-0052].
Mattes et al. (US 2014/0279519 A1) discloses receiving an image of an identification document of the user during a first transaction with a first party, wherein the image is obtained using an image acquisition module of a device of the user, receiving a device ID of the user's device, extracting identification credentials of the user from the image, storing the identification credentials of the user and the device ID of the user's device on a server, wherein the device ID is associated with the identification credentials of the user. Mattes Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698