DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) has/have been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-20 is/are objected to because of informalities. The examiner recommends the following changes.
Claims 1, 8, and 15, the identifying step, should be “the factors comprise the identification factor.”
Claims 1, 8, and 15, should be “comparing, by the one or more processors, [[a]] the calculated confidence scores
Claims 1, 8, and 15, should be “transmitting, by one or more processors, to a user, a request for identification documentation; receiving, by the one or more processors, the identification documentation of [[a]] the user.” The second “a user” should read “the user” if the same user is intended.
Claim 15, recites “one or more computer processors” in the body and “one or more processors” in each step. The terms should be made consistent
Claims 4, 11 and 17 recite “evaluating whether the aggregate confidence score meets a predefined threshold.” Claims 1, 8 and 15, from which these claims depend, do not recite an aggregate confidence score; that score is first recited in claims 3, 10 and 16. It appears that claims 4, 11 and 17 were intended to depend from claims 3, 10 and 16 respectively, and they are examined as though they do. Applicant should amend the dependency, or amend the claims to recite “an aggregate confidence score.”
Claim 6 recites “appointing an administrator.” Claim 1 recites an “administrative user” who is notified. It is unclear whether the “administrator” appointed in claim 6 is the same person as the administrative user of claim 1 or a different person. Claims 13 and 19 recite the same limitations as claim 6 and are indefinite for the same reasons. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined.
The other dependent claims not mentioned in this section depend either directly or indirectly from the objection of claim 1, 8, and 15, therefore they are also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-16 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “A computer system for predicting team dynamics based on changing circumstances.” The preamble states that the system is for predicting team dynamics, but the body of the claim recites program instructions for verifying the identity of a user by way of identification documentation, a video call and confidence scores. Nothing in the disclosure concerns team dynamics or changing circumstances. It is unclear whether the claim requires a system that predicts team dynamics, and if so what structure or instructions perform that function. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined.
Claim 2 recites “any other biometric data such as facial recognition and iris scan.” The phrase “such as” is exemplary language. It is unclear whether the examples that follow it are limitations of the claim, and “any other biometric data” places no bound on the factors that must be identified. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Claim 9 recites the same limitation and is indefinite for the same reason. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined.
Claim 3 recites “calculating an aggregate confidence score for multiple tasks of the one or more tasks by selecting the task of the one or more tasks with the highest confidence score, computing a simple average of all task scores for the one or more tasks, and applying a weighted average that assigns greater significance to tasks of the one or more tasks performed later in the sequence.” The claim recites that the aggregate confidence score is calculated by three different methods conjunctively: selecting the highest task score, computing a simple average, and applying a weighted average. Each method produces a different value. It is unclear which of the three values is the aggregate confidence score, or how a single aggregate score can be calculated by all three at once. The specification describes these as alternatives (¶55: “A simple approach may involve selecting the task with the highest confidence score, while other methods may calculate a straightforward average or applying a weighted average”), not as steps performed together. Claims 10 and 16 recite the same limitation and are indefinite for the same reason. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined.
Claim 5 recites “gestures like holding up fingers, placing hands on walls, and interacting with their clothing.” The word “like” is exemplary language, and it is unclear whether the gestures that follow it are required by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Claims 12 and 18 recite the same limitation and are indefinite for the same reason. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined.
Claim 5 recites “user's phone” and “user's camera.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “based on the confidence score.” Claim 1 recites “a confidence score for each factor of the factors,” that is, a plurality of confidence scores. It is unclear which of those scores is “the confidence score” on which cases are sent for manual review. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined.
Claim 7 recites “until the confidence score reaches a minimum threshold.” Claim 1 recites “a confidence score for each factor of the factors,” that is, a plurality of confidence scores, so it is unclear which score is “the confidence score” that must reach the threshold. Further, claim 1 already recites “minimum confidence scores” and “a required threshold,” and claim 7 introduces “a minimum threshold” without stating whether it is one of those thresholds or a third threshold. Claims 14 and 20 recite the same limitations as claim 7 and are indefinite for the same reasons. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim(s) recite(s) a process (claims 1-7), a manufacture (claims 8-14) and a machine
(claims 15-20), which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 recite(s):
transmitting, by one or more processors, to a user, a request for identification documentation
receiving, by the one or more processors, the identification documentation of a user
assigning, by the one or more processors, an identification factor to the identification documentation
identifying, by the one or more processors, factors for verification, wherein the factors comprises of the identification factor and one or more task factors
initiating, by the one or more processors, a video call with the user
instructing, by the one or more processors, the user to perform one or more tasks within a time limit, wherein each task of the one or more tasks are associated with the one or more task factors
calculating, by the one or more processors and via a multimodal LLM, a confidence score for each factor of the factors
comparing, by the one or more processors, a calculated confidence scores to against minimum confidence scores, wherein a minimum confidence score can be user defined or automatically defined by the multimodal LLM
iteratively, repeating, by the one or more processors, any remaining tasks from the one or more tasks for the user to perform until the time limit has expired
outputting, by the one or more processors, a final score based on the calculated confidence scores
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the calculated confidence scores exceeds a required threshold, wherein a required threshold score can be administrative user defined or automatically defined by the multimodal LLM
notifying, by the one or more processors, an administrative user that the calculated confidence scores did not exceed the required threshold
The recited operations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity. Requesting and receiving identification documents, assigning a factor, directing tasks within a time limit,
repeating tasks until time expires, grading performance against minimum scores and a required
threshold, and referring the person to an administrative user is the procedure an interviewer
follows when verifying identity in person. The specification frames the process as KYC and anti-money-laundering compliance, which is risk mitigation, a fundamental economic practice. The
assigning, comparing, and determining steps are also mental processes that can be performed by observation, evaluation, and judgment, with or without pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 1: YES, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea (certain methods of organizing
human activity).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite as additional elements: one or more processors; a video call; a multimodal LLM; a time limit; the transmitting and receiving steps; and, in claims 8 and
15, non-transitory computer readable storage media. The processors and storage media are generic tools for carrying out the verification procedure (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The multimodal LLM is also a tool. The claim states the confidence score is calculated “via” the LLM and thresholds “can be” defined by it, without reciting how the LLM is trained, structured, or applied to the video, and without improving the LLM. The video call and the transmitting and receiving steps gather the data on which the abstract idea operates, and the time limit bounds the human activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Notifying an administrative user is insignificant post-solution activity. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements link the abstract idea to an online video session and do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 2: NO for claim(s) 1-20.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception.
The multimodal LLM is described at ¶ 43 as “Any existing LLM can be leveraged, such as IBM Watson, OpenAI's GPT, Google's Gemini, etc.,” which shows it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I).
The one or more processors and non-transitory computer readable storage media are described at ¶ 25 as “COMPUTER 101 may take the form of a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, smart watch or other wearable computer, mainframe computer, quantum computer or any other form of computer or mobile device now known or to be developed in the future,” which shows they are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(I). The specification describes the hardware as “any other form of computer or mobile device now known or to be developed in the future,” which identifies no particular machine and confirms that the claimed processors are invoked as a tool on which the verification procedure is carried out rather than as an improvement to any computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Transmitting the request and receiving identification documentation amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional except for the computer of the future, which is not enables. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Initiating a video call is shown to be widely prevalent or in common use by (LARSON ¶ 58 “may establish a videotelephone or videoconferencing connection with the client system
105B"), which shows a video session between an identity-verification service and an enrollee
was in common use before the effective filing date. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I).
The additional elements have been considered individually and as an ordered combination. Together they receive documents over a network, hold a video call, run a commercially available language model on the collected data, and report the result. That is the ordinary operation of a computer in an online verification service and adds nothing beyond what each element contributes alone.
Step 2B: NO.
The claim does no more than apply generic machine learning to a new data environment. Claims that “do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied” are not eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Claims directed to improving the functioning of the model itself may be eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d), subsection III, and MPEP 2106.05(a), citing Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (Appeals Review Panel Sept. 26, 2025). No such improvement is recited here. The claim recites the LLM only by its result, and the specification states any existing LLM may be used and training is beyond the scope.
The dependent claims are addressed below.
Claims
Result
Analysis
2, 9
Ineligible
Adds biographic and biometric factors, a field of use limitation.
3, 10, 16
Ineligible
Adds last-layer score and aggregation by maximum, average, weighted average, a mathematical operation.
4, 11, 17
Ineligible
Adds LLM prompting, comparing, scoring, evaluating threshold, a generic computer implementation.
5, 12, 18
Ineligible
Adds specified gestures, QR code, liveness and identity checks, insignificant extra-solution activity
6, 13, 19
Ineligible
Adds manual administrator and risk parameter, a field of use limitation.
7, 14, 20
Ineligible
Adds new data, recalculating and cycling prompts until threshold, a mathematical operation.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11 , 13-15, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson et al., US 2020/0366671 A1 (hereinafter “Larson”) in view of Southgate et al. (US 2024/0146734 A1, hereinafter “Southgate”) and further in view of Kolchin, US 2024/0202687 A1 (hereinafter “Kolchin”).
Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Larson discloses a computer-implemented method (LARSON ¶¶ 26, 213, 290) comprising:
transmitting, by one or more processors, to a user, a request for identification documentation (LARSON ¶ 123: “FIG. 13 shows an ID scan GUI instance 1305 which notifies the enrollee that a specific ID document is to be scanned … the instruction text 1331 may also provide instructions regarding the types of ID documents that may be scanned (e.g., driver's license, military ID, naturalization card, passport, green card, or H-1B visa).”);
receiving, by the one or more processors, the identification documentation of a user (LARSON ¶ 39: “scan various identity documents ( e.g., driver's license, passport, birth certificate, medical insurance card, etc.) using embedded or accessible sensors.”);
assigning, by the one or more processors, an identification factor to the identification documentation (LARSON ¶ 15: “compared with other collected data such as the validated authentication identity documents.” The scanned document supplies a validated factor against which the session is measured.);
identifying, by the one or more processors, factors for verification, wherein the factors comprises of the identification factor and one or more task factors (LARSON ¶ 91: “biographic data may be identified from the identity documents scanned at operation 208 such as by performing optical character recognition (OCR)”; ¶ 85: “prompt the applicant to perform one or more gestures for liveness verification”; ¶ 122: “may include a timer (e.g., a countdown timer) element during which the enrollee is to record his/her voice.”);
initiating, by the one or more processors, a video call with the user (LARSON ¶ 58: “may establish a videotelephone or videoconferencing connection with the client system 105B.”);
instructing, by the one or more processors, the user to perform one or more tasks within a time limit, wherein each task of the one or more tasks are associated with the one or more task factors (LARSON ¶ 85: “prompt the applicant to perform one or more gestures for liveness verification”; ¶ 122: “the GUI instance 1110 may include a timer (e.g., a countdown timer) element during which the enrollee is to record his/her voice.”);
calculating, by the one or more processors and (LARSON ¶ 55: “calculate identity scores or ratings, confidence scores, trust authenticators, max ID scores”);
comparing, by the one or more processors, a calculated confidence scores to against minimum confidence scores, wherein a minimum confidence score can be user defined (LARSON ¶ 99: ‘the approval decision is generally an automatic answer based on the overall score of the applicant and a configured threshold.” The configured threshold is the user-defined alternative.);
iteratively, repeating, by the one or more processors, any remaining tasks from the one or more tasks for the user to perform until the time limit has expired (LARSON ¶ 122: “indicate a number of times that the enrollee is to read the displayed text out loud.”; ¶ 100: “the enrollee may then be asked follow-up (e.g., KBA) questions.”);
outputting, by the one or more processors, a final score based on the calculated confidence scores (LARSON ¶ 56: “a trust score may be determined for each piece of data provided by an enrollee during the enrollment process, and the identity score may be based on a combination of the trust scores.”; ¶ 96: “an overall trust score based on the real-time checks 211, 212, 213 and biometric checks 204, 206 may be presented to the interviewer.”);
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the calculated confidence scores exceeds a required threshold, wherein a required threshold score can be administrative user defined (LARSON ¶ 99: “the approval decision is generally an automatic answer based on the overall score of the applicant and a configured threshold.”); and
notifying, by the one or more processors, an administrative user that the calculated confidence scores did not exceed the required threshold (LARSON¶ 57: “client systems 105 used by human interviewers.”; ¶ 100: “one or more indicators have failing or review type conditions indicated”).
Larson does not specifically teach that the confidence score is calculated, and the thresholds automatically defined, by an LLM. However, Southgate in the same field of endeavor teaches an authentication model implemented by an LLM that decides a match on a confidence threshold (SOUTHGATE ¶ 44: "the LLM may be the same, similar to, and/or implemented by the authentication model 120”; ¶ 31: “based on a threshold level of confidence … a match or no match for user authentication with respect to data stored in the knowledge base 130.”).
Larson and Southgate do not specifically teach that the LLM is multimodal. However, Kolchin in the same field of endeavor teaches an LLM that takes camera and microphone input for identity verification (KOLCHIN ¶ 292: “A Large Language Model (LLM) based operating system configured to continuously analyze multimodal data from a plurality of independent channels … A multimodal biometric authentication module utilizing visual, auditory, and tactile data for user identity verification.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compute Larson’s confidence scores with Southgate’s LLM
authentication model and feed that model the video and audio of Larson’s session as Kolchin
does. Southgate states (SOUTHGATE¶ 15: “improves the operation of a computer system by increasing the security of access control.”). Kolchin states (KOLCHIN ¶ 294:
“to enhance contextual understanding and improve fraud detection accuracy.”). The motivation to combine would have been because Larson already captures the video and audio
that Kolchin’s model consumes and Southgate’s model already returns the confidence decision
Larson compares it to its threshold. Larson’s scored video session, Southgate’s LLM that returns a confidence decision, and Kolchin’s multimodal input were each already known in the prior art.
The elements are combinable by known methods. Each element performs the same function in
the combination as it did separately. The results were predictable because a language model
would compute a session score in place of Larson's per-modality algorithms. This is combining
prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claims 2 and 9.
Larson, Southgate and Kolchin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying factors for verification further comprises of, age, gender, height, eye color, hair color, date of birth, place of birth, nationality, residential address, signature, photograph, fingerprints, and any other biometric data such as facial recognition and iris scan (LARSON ¶ 91: “biographic data may be identified from the identity documents scanned at operation 208
such as by performing optical character recognition (OCR).” The height, eye color, hair
color, signature and photograph printed on the scanned license are read this way; LARSON ¶ 93: “comparing the provided name, birth date, address(es), and/or SSN.”; LARSON ¶ 19: “such as place of birth, mother's maiden name.”; LARSON ¶ 269: “Face, voice, fingerprint, iris, eye print.”).
Claims 4, 11, and 17.
Larson, Southgate and Kolchin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the multimodal LLM has capabilities that further comprise: prompting the user to initiate a video chat and performing a series of dynamically generated tasks aimed at verifying various human factors (LARSON ¶ 58: “may establish a videotelephone or videoconferencing
connection with the client system 105B.”; LARSON ¶ 85: “prompt the applicant to
perform one or more gestures for liveness verification.”; SOUTHGATE ¶ 44: “generating, in response to a request from the user device for access to a resource of the domain, one or more authentication challenges.” The challenges are generated by the LLM at the time of the request.); verifying user’s identity by comparing the user in the video call to identification documents (LARSON ¶ 15: “compared with other collected data such as the validated authentication identity documents”); calculating confidence scores for each task (LARSON ¶ 55: “calculate identity scores or ratings, confidence scores, trust authenticators, max ID scores.”); and evaluating whether the aggregate confidence score meets a predefined threshold (LARSON ¶ 99: “the approval decision is generally an automatic answer based on the overall score of the applicant and a configured threshold.” The overall score is the aggregate.).
Claims 6, 13, and 19.
Larson, Southgate and Kolchin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein notifying an administrative user that the calculated confidence scores did not exceed the required threshold further comprising of: appointing an administrator to manage edge cases that cannot automatically resolve, including scenarios where user's camera captures poor images due to insufficient lighting or technical issues; handling these cases manually according to predefined procedures; and establishing a tunable parameter for risk levels to determine when cases are sent for manual review based on the confidence score, where in lower-risk implementations a risk tolerance is set high to minimize manual reviews, and in higher-risk environments, the risk tolerance is set lower to direct more cases for manual review prior to approval (LARSON ¶ 243: “Suspicious behavior is flagged for manual review or rejection.” LARSON ¶ 117: “has not been captured within a predefined time period (e.g., 10 seconds).” This is the poor-capture edge case routed to troubleshooting. LARSON ¶ 99: “a configured threshold.” The configured threshold is the tunable risk parameter.).
Claims 7, 14, and 20.
Larson, Southgate and Kolchin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the multimodal LLM has capabilities, further comprising: incorporating newly gathered data after completion of additional tasks; recalculating the confidence score based on latest tasks completed of the one or more tasks; and cycling between prompting for further tasks and recalculating the confidence score until the confidence score reaches a minimum threshold while accounting for the time limit (LARSON ¶ 100: “the enrollee may then be asked follow-up (e.g., KBA) questions.” SOUTHGATE ¶ 32: “the authentication challenge 112 may be
a conversation, in which multiple prompts and queries are provided to the user device.” SOUTHGATE ¶ 32: “the user device 110 must successfully respond 114 to a plurality
of authentication challenges.” LARSON ¶ 122: “a timer (e.g., a countdown timer)
element.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 16 and 18 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art of record, but stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. Each would be allowable if rewritten in independent fom1 including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is listed on the PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights