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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 have been cancelled and Claims 22-41 have been added; therefore, Claims 22-41 are currently pending in application 19/000,045.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/6/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,544. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions disclose equivalent elements for obtaining and verifying information about an entity through third-party authorization.
19/000,045
US 12,175,544
Independent Claims 22, 30, and 38:
A system (method, One or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions thereon), comprising: one or more processors, coupled with memory, to:
retrieve, from a database, first information associated with an account profile of a first entity;
identify, based on execution of a data parse on the first information, a statement provided by the first entity;
detect, based on second information included in the statement, a second entity that maintains third information to verify the statement;
provide, to a first computing device associated with the account profile, a prompt to obtain authorization to access the third information by the one or more processors;
transmit, responsive to receipt of a first response to the prompt, an electronic message to a second computing device associated with the second entity, wherein the electronic message indicates the authorization to access the third information by the one or more processors; and [See also below Dependent Claims 25, 27, and 29]
responsive to receipt of a second response that verifies the statement, provide an element for graphical display to indicate verification of the statement and upon a request to present one or more portions of the first information via a user interface.
23. The system of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors further: identify, responsive to receipt of the second response, a graphical image for inclusion in the element, the graphical image to represent the second entity; and provide, responsive to identification of the graphical image, the element having the graphical image.
25. The system of claim 22, wherein the account profile is associated with an online platform, and wherein the one or more processors further: prompt the first computing device to provide login information to provide access to the account profile; generate, using the login information, an access context to restrict access to the first information; and retrieve, using the access context, the first information from the database.
27. The system of claim 22, wherein the authorization to access the third information is included with login information that provides a second authorization to access one or more sets of additional information associated with the first entity, and wherein the one or more processors further: generate, using the login information, an access context to restrict access to the third information; and transmit the electronic message having the access context to restrict access to the third information.
29. The system of claim 22, wherein the database is maintained by an online platform, wherein the account profile provides access to the online platform, and wherein the one or more processors further: retrieve, from the database, the first information using login information that provides access to the account profile.
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15:
A data verification system comprising: a computer system; and a document verifier in the computer system, wherein the document verifier operates to:
access an electronic document associated with a first device;
parse the electronic document to identify an assertion included in the electronic document;
identify an organization that maintains records capable of substantiating the assertion, wherein the organization comprises an independent third-party;
create, responsive to receiving login information from the first device, an access context to restrict access to information that verifies the assertion, the login information associated with the organization capable of substantiating the assertion;
generate a request with the access context that is configured to grant the organization with authorization to retrieve information that verifies the assertion;
send, to the organization, the request to search for the information that verifies the assertion, the request including the access context used to obtain authorization to retrieve the information that verifies the assertion;
in response to receiving a reply that substantiates the assertion, generate a verification badge in a context of the organization, wherein generating the verification badge in the context of the organization includes identifying a graphic image associated with the organization for inclusion in the verification badge;
transform the electronic document to display the verification badge in association with the assertion and the graphic image associated with the organization, wherein transforming the electronic document comprises altering a document object model and a cascading style sheet accessed to display the electronic document; and display the transformed electronic document within a graphical user interface, the transformed electronic document including the verification badge in association with the assertion and the graphic image associated with the organization.
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 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 22-41 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 22-29 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 30-37 are directed toward a process (method). Claims 38-41 are directed toward a computer program product having computer-readable tangible storage media (article of manufacture). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 22-41 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 22, 30 and 38 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of obtaining and verifying information about an entity (through third-party authorization).
Regarding independent claims 22, 30 and 38, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A method, comprising:
retrieving, by one or more processing circuits, from a database, first information associated with an account profile of a first entity; identifying, by the one or more processing circuits, based on executing a data parse on the first information, a statement provided by the first entity; [Data extraction, organizing, and querying information]
detecting, by the one or more processing circuits, based on second information included in the statement, a second entity that maintains third information to verify the statement; [Identifying an external party to verify a claim]
providing, by the one or more processing circuits, to a first computing device associated with the account profile, a prompt to obtain authorization to access the third information by the one or more processing circuits; transmitting, by the one or more processing circuits, responsive to receiving a first response to the prompt, an electronic message to a second computing device associated with the second entity, wherein the electronic message indicates the authorization to access the third information by the one or more processing circuits; and [Obtaining consent or notifying another party (similar to basic prompt/response communications or human notifications)]
providing, by the one or more processing circuits, responsive to receiving a second response that verifies the statement, an element for graphical display to indicate verification of the statement and upon a request to present one or more portions of the first information via a user interface. [Presenting information or a status (verification of a statement) via a user interface]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 22, 30 and 38 are directed to the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)).
Dependent claims 23-29, 31-37, and 39-41 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 22, 30 and 38 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 22, 30 and 38.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 22-41 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “processing circuits”, a “database”, a “computing device”, an “element for graphical display”, and a “user interface”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 23-29, 31-37, and 39-41 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 22-41 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “processing circuits”, a “database”, a “computing device”, an “element for graphical display”, and a “user interface”. However, these limitations (Generic computing components) are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field (The claims do not improve computer functionality, data transmission speeds, or database architecture. The processing circuits are merely used as a generic tool to automate manual, pre-Internet administrative processes (i.e., requesting verification from a third party)); (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 23-29, 31-37, and 39-41 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 22, 30 and 38 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 22, 30 and 38; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 22-41 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Boland (US 2019/0068608 A1) – Boland discloses a system/ method for processing a request, received via a network interface, for an exclusive claim to a unique identifier associated with an individual; verifying the individual's claim to the unique identifier is proper; if the individual's claim is verified, create a user account, wherein the user account is associated with the respective individual's claimed unique identifier; providing a look up service for responding to external queries regarding whether individual unique identifiers of the type claimed by the individual have been claimed; and providing proof of the identity of the individual based on the individual's exclusive claim to the claimed unique identifier in response to a request to provide said proof if authorized by the individual through the user account (See at least Figs.1-4, Para 0060-0062, Para 0086, and Para 0147)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
June 30, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights