DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 18, it is missing (.) period at the end of the claim to indicate completion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 21 is/are directed to methods of generating communication profile under step 1. However, the limitations “verifying…”; “verifying…”; “generating…”; “generating…”; and “linking…” in claim 2; the limitations “generating…”; “verifying…”; “verifying…”; “generating…”; “generating…”; “linking…”; and “generating…” in claim 12; and the limitations “generating…”; “generating…”; and “linking…” in claim 21 are functions that can be reasonably done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation evaluation judgement and opinion under Prong I step 2A.
Under Prong II step 2A, the other limitations in the claims including “by a computer system” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The remainder limitations including “receiving…” merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under step 2B, these additional elements above either individually or in combination are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The remainder limitations including “receiving…” merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 3-4, 6-8, 10, and 13-17, the limitations in these claims are considered as additional elements and analyzed under Prong II step 2A where they further define descriptive information which either as instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application or insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 5, 9, 11, and 18-20, the limitations in these claims are analyzed under Prong I step 2A which are functions that can be reasonably done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation evaluation judgement and opinion under Prong I step 2A. There is no additional elements that would integrate into the practical application. Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peram et al. (U.S. 2017/0098219 A1) in view of Jones et al. (U.S. 2024/0214770 A1).
Re claim 2, Peram et al. disclose in Figures 1-4 a computer-implemented method for generating an authenticated two-way electronic communications profile (e.g. abstract and Figure 1), the method comprising: receiving, by a computer system, a request from a user to generate an electronic communications profile and a physical location (e.g. paragraphs [0016-0018 and 0030-0035]); verifying, by the computer system, an identity of the user (e.g. paragraph [0018]); verifying, by the computer system, whether the user is associated with the physical location (e.g. paragraphs [0037, 0049, and 0053]); generating, by the computer system, the electronic communications profile, wherein the electronic communications profile is associated with the identity of the user (e.g. paragraphs [0045-0050]). Peram et al. fail to disclose generating, by the computer system, an electronic address based on the physical location; linking, by the computer system, the electronic address with the electronic communications profile. However, Jones et al. disclose generating, by the computer system, an electronic address based on the physical location (e.g. paragraphs [0056 and 0075]); linking, by the computer system, the electronic address with the electronic communications profile (e.g. Figure 2 and paragraphs [0021-0026] associated with account). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add generating, by the computer system, an electronic address based on the physical location; linking, by the computer system, the electronic address with the electronic communications profile as seen in Jones et al.’s invention into Peram et al.’s invention because it would enable to securely protect the communication.
Re claim 3, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose the physical location is a physical address (e.g. Jones et al. – abstract and paragraph [0018]).
Re claim 4, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose the physical location is longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates (e.g. Jones et al. – abstract and paragraph [0054 and 0144]).
Re claim 5, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose verifying the identity of the user comprises: requesting, by the computer system, a user input of user identification information (e.g. Peram et al. – abstract with user account identification); receiving, by the computer system, the user input of the user identification information (e.g. Peram et al. – paragraphs [0016-0017 and 0021-0022]); determining, by the computer system, that the user identification information is sufficient to verify the identity of the user (e.g. Peram et al. – paragraphs [0017-0020]).
Re claim 6, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose the user identification information comprises a government issued identification document (e.g. Peram et al. – paragraphs [0016-0022]).
Re claim 7, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose verifying whether the user is associated with the physical location comprises: requesting, by the computer system, a user input of location verification information (e.g. Peram et al. - paragraph [0037]); receiving, by the computer system, the user input of the location verification information (e.g. Peram et al. - paragraph [0037]); determining, by the computer system, that the location verification information is sufficient to verify that the user is associated with the physical location (e.g. Peram et al. – paragraphs [0049-0052] ).
Re claim 8, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose the location verification information comprises proof of occupancy or ownership documentation (e.g. Peram et al. – paragraph [0024 and 0030-0033]).
Re claim 9, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose the electronic address and/or the electronic communications profile is mapped on an electronically generated map, and the electronic address and/or the electronic communications profile is positioned at a location on the electronically generated map corresponding to the physical location (e.g. Jones et al. - paragraphs [0056 and 0075]).
Re claim 10, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose generating, by the computer system, a machine readable code associated with the electronic address and/or the electronic communications profile (e.g. Jones et al. – paragraphs [0017-0018 and 0145]).
Re claim 11, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose the electronic communications profile comprises a plurality of electronic communications accounts linked to the electronic address, wherein each electronic communication account of the plurality of electronic communications accounts is associated with a different communication entity (e.g. Jones et al. - Figure 2 and paragraphs [0021-0026] associated with account).
Re claim 12, Peram et al. disclose in Figures 1-4 a computer-implemented method for generating an authenticated two-way electronic communications account (e.g. abstract and Figure 1), the method comprising: generating, by a computer system, an electronic communications profile, wherein generating the electronic communications profile (e.g. paragraphs [0030-0035] with creating account profile) comprises: receiving, by a computer system, a request from a user to generate the electronic communication profile and a physical location (e.g. paragraphs [0016-0018 and 0030-0035]); verifying, by the computer system, an identity of the user (e.g. paragraph [0018]); verifying, by the computer system, whether the user is associated with the physical location (e.g. paragraphs [0037, 0049, and 0053]), generating, by the computer system, the electronic communications profile, wherein the electronic communications profile is associated with the identity of the user (e.g. paragraphs [0045-0050]). Peram et al. fail to disclose generating, by the computer system, an electronic address based on the physical location; linking, by the computer system, the electronic communications profile to the electronic address; receiving, by the computer system, an input of a machine readable code associated with a communication entity; generating, by the computer system, an electronic communications account for the communication entity, wherein the electronic communications account is linked to the electronic address. However, Jones et al. disclose ; generating, by the computer system, an electronic address based on the physical location (e.g. paragraphs [0056 and 0075]); linking, by the computer system, the electronic communications profile to the electronic address (e.g. Figure 2 and paragraphs [0021-0026] associated with account); receiving, by the computer system, an input of a machine readable code associated with a communication entity (e.g. paragraphs [0017-0018 and 0145]); generating, by the computer system, an electronic communications account for the communication entity, wherein the electronic communications account is linked to the electronic address (e.g. abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add ; generating, by the computer system, an electronic address based on the physical location; linking, by the computer system, the electronic communications profile to the electronic address; receiving, by the computer system, an input of a machine readable code associated with a communication entity; generating, by the computer system, an electronic communications account for the communication entity, wherein the electronic communications account is linked to the electronic address as seen in Jones et al.’s invention into Peram et al.’s invention because it would enable to securely protect the communication.
Re claim 13, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose the communication entity comprises a vendor (e.g. Peram et al. – Figure 1 and 3 and Jones et al. – paragraph [0054]).
Re claim 14, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose the communication entity comprises a communication platform (e.g. Peram et al. – abstract and paragraphs [0014-0017] and Jones et al. - paragraphs [0052 and 0103]).
Re claim 15, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose the communication entity comprises a government (e.g. Peram et al. – paragraphs [0016-0022] and Jones et al. - paragraphs [0055-0057 and 0080]).
Re claim 16, this claim has same limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 16 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 17, this claim has same limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 17 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re claim 18, Peram et al. in view Jones et al. disclose generating by the computer system, an electronically generated map comprising the electronic communications account comprising the electronic communications account, wherein the electronic communications account is positioned at a location on the electronically generated map corresponding to the physical location (e.g. Jones et al. - paragraphs [0056 and 0075]).
Re claims 19-20, these claims have same limitations as cited in claims 3-4. Thus, claims 19-20 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 3-4 above.
Re claim 21, Peram et al. disclose in Figures 1-4 a computer-implemented method for generating an authenticated two-way electronic communications profile (e.g. abstract and Figure 1), the method comprising: receiving, by a computer system, a request from a user to generate an electronic communications profile and a physical location (e.g. paragraphs [0016-0018 and 0030-0035]); generating, by the computer system, the electronic communications profile, wherein the electronic communications profile is associated with an identity of the user paragraphs [0037, and 0045-0053]. Peram et al. fail to disclose generating, by the computer system, an electronic address based on the physical location; linking, by the computer system, the electronic address with the electronic communications profile. However, Jones et al. disclose generating, by the computer system, an electronic address based on the physical location (e.g. paragraphs [0056 and 0075]); linking, by the computer system, the electronic address with the electronic communications profile (e.g. Figure 2 and paragraphs [0021-0026] associated with account). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add generating, by the computer system, an electronic address based on the physical location; linking, by the computer system, the electronic address with the electronic communications profile as seen in Jones et al.’s invention into Peram et al.’s invention because it would enable to securely protect the communication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20240214770-A1
US-20170098219-A1
US-20160269456-A1
US-20160086391-A1
US-20160048937-A1
US-20150379554-A1
US-20140310739-A1
US-20140012740-A1
US-9350750-B1
US-8838832-B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights