DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Claims 1-29 have been examined.
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 .
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 1-29 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Insufficient Antecedent Basis
Claim 1 recites the limitation “verify the verification request against the verification database…” in line 16 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the vote recording controller stores the unique ID against the vote.” In line 2 of claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-29 are also rejected as each depends from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 19-21, 23, 26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), and in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”).
Regarding claim 1, Sehr discloses:
A voting system (abs) comprising:
a verification device comprising: (Fig. 1)
a data interface in operable communication across a wide area network with:
a verification database; and (Fig. 1 item 30)
a centralized voter database configured to store at least one of voter biometrics data and voter identification data; (Fig. 1 item 30; col 2 lines 14-17, 34-39)
a biometric sensor;(Fig. 1 item 12)
a processor executing computer program code instruction controllers configured for voter verification, the controllers comprising: (Fig. 7; col 7 line 24 - col 8 line 10)
a biometric sensing controller configured to sense biometrics of a voter; (Fig. 7 step 205.1; col 7 lines 49-52)
a verification controller (Fig. 6A) configured to:
verify voter identity data (selected from biometrics data and voter identification data) against the centralized voter database; (Fig. 6A steps 102-108)
verify the verification request against the verification database and update the verification database; (Fig. 7 steps 201-206; col 7 lines 24-60)
a code generator controller configured to generate a code of the successful verification of the voter verification; (col 7 lines 58-62)
an offline voting device, which operates without a live network connection, (Fig. 1 item 14; col 2 lines 40-50 and col 5 lines 9-12) comprising:
a code reader; (Fig. 1 item 11)
a biometric sensor; (Fig. 1 item 12)
a digital display; (Fig. 1 item 15)
storage; (Fig. 1 item 10)
a processor executing computer program code instruction controllers configured for vote recording, the controllers comprising: (Figs. 6A-B; col 5 line 43 - col 6 line 64)
a biometric sensing controller configured to sense the biometrics of the voter; (Fig. 6A step 106.1; col 6 lines 2-11)
a code verifier controller configured to:
read the code using the code reader; (Fig. 6A, step 102.1; col 5 lines 52-57)
verify the code and the biometrics; (Fig. 6A, steps 104-106; col 5 line 62-col 6 line 6)
a voting flow controller configured to: (Fig. 6B)
display voting options using the digital display; (Fig. 4 and 6B; col 6 lines 28-32)
a vote recording controller configured to store the vote in the storage and (Fig. 6B; col 6 lines 33-64).
Sehr does not explicitly disclose:
an eye tracker operably interfacing the digital display;
record eye gesture voter interactions with the voting options using the eye tracker to record a vote;
wherein the voting device is configured to continuously monitor the biometrics of the voter using the biometric sensor during voting.
However, Obradovic et al. discloses:
an eye tracker operably interfacing the digital display; (¶¶0007-8)
record eye gesture voter interactions with the voting options using the eye tracker to record a vote; (¶¶0007-8 and ¶0029)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Computerized Voting Information System Having Predefined Content and Voting Templates of Sehr by including using eye tracker to record a vote in accordance with the teaching of Obradovic et al.. This modification enables the combined system to record a vote with eye tracker. This enhances a voter privacy.
Sehr and Obradovic et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the voting device is configured to continuously monitor the biometrics of the voter using the biometric sensor during voting.
However, Giraud discloses:
wherein the voting device is configured to continuously monitor the biometrics of the voter using the biometric sensor during voting. (col 14 lines 52-61)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr and Obradovic et al. by including continuously monitor the biometrics of the voter using the biometric sensor during voting in accordance with the teaching of Giraud. This modification enables the combined system to monitor the voter’s identity throughout the entire period of vote casting. This prevents voter fraud and improves the voting security.
Regarding claim 13, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr further disclose:
wherein:
the code generator controller is configured to generate the code with an indication if the voter is blind; and (col 7 lines 58-62)
Obradovic et al. discloses:
the code reader controller configured to detect the indication that the voter is blind to enable the voting flow controller to output the voting options using an output audio device and to receive selections thereof using an input device to record the vote. (¶0027)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Computerized Voting Information System Having Predefined Content and Voting Templates of Sehr by making electronic voting accessible to visually impaired in accordance with the teaching of Obradovic et al.. This modification enables the combined system to support voters with disability.
Regarding claim 19, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr further discloses:
wherein the verification device is configured to generate a unique ID for the verification which is obtained by the code reader of the voting device and wherein duplicate votes are detected by duplicate unique IDs.(col 7 lines 42-62)
Regarding claim 20, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Obradovic et al. further discloses:
wherein the system is configured for recording selection of a voting option by detecting gaze directed to the voting option for more than a time period threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Computerized Voting Information System Having Predefined Content and Voting Templates of Sehr by including using eye tracker to record a vote in accordance with the teaching of Obradovic et al.. This modification enables the combined system to record a vote with eye tracker. This enhances a voter privacy.
Regarding claim 21, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Obradovic et al. further discloses:
wherein the system is further configured for confirming the selection by displaying a confirmation having confirmation options and detecting gaze directed to one of the confirmation option for more than a time period threshold. (Fig. 5; ¶0029, ¶0043)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Computerized Voting Information System Having Predefined Content and Voting Templates of Sehr by including using eye tracker to record a vote in accordance with the teaching of Obradovic et al.. This modification enables the combined system to record a vote with eye tracker. This enhances a voter privacy.
Regarding claim 23, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Obradovic et al. further discloses:
wherein the output audio device comprises a headset. (Fig. 1 item 105; ¶0027)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Computerized Voting Information System Having Predefined Content and Voting Templates of Sehr by making electronic voting accessible to visually impaired in accordance with the teaching of Obradovic et al.. This modification enables the combined system to support voters with disability.
Regarding claim 26, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Obradovic et al. further discloses:
wherein the offline voting device comprises a headset comprising the digital display therein and wherein the headset comprises a front panel having a pair of eye apertures. (Fig. 1 item 105; ¶¶0025-27)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Computerized Voting Information System Having Predefined Content and Voting Templates of Sehr by including voting with VR device in accordance with the teaching of Obradovic et al.. This modification improves the voting privacy.
Regarding claim 28, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr further discloses:
wherein the verification device comprises an input device configured to receive voter identification data. (Fig. 1 item 12)
Regarding claim 29, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr further discloses:
wherein the verification controller is configured to verify the voter solely based on biometrics sensed by the biometric sensor. (Fig. 6A steps 102-108)
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), and in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US Application Publication US20150341350A1 (“Mandal et al.”).
Regarding claim 2, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the verification code generator generates the code from a one-time pad and the code verifier controller checks the code against a corresponding code selected from an associated one-time pad.
However, Mandal et al. discloses:
wherein the verification code generator generates the code from a one-time pad and the code verifier controller checks the code against a corresponding code selected from an associated one-time pad. (¶0035 and ¶0042)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including generating the code from a one-time pad in accordance with the teaching of Mandal et al.. This modification enables the system utilizing cryptography in generating the code. Hence, it improves the security as the code is encrypted.
Regarding claim 3, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the:
the code generator controller is configured to encode a representation of the biometrics in the code;
the code reader controller is configured to decode the representation of the biometrics from the code; and
the code verifier controller is configured to verify the code in the biometrics using the representation.
However, Mandal et al. discloses:
wherein the:
the code generator controller is configured to encode a representation of the biometrics in the code; (¶0035 and ¶0042)
the code reader controller is configured to decode the representation of the biometrics from the code; and (¶0035 and ¶0042)
the code verifier controller is configured to verify the code in the biometrics using the representation. (¶0035 and ¶0042)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including encode a representation of the biometrics in the code in accordance with the teaching of Mandal et al.. This modification improves the data security as the code is encoded.
Regarding claim 4, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud and Mandal et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Mandal et al. further discloses:
wherein the representation is a hash of the biometrics. (¶0042, claim 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including representation is a hash of the biometrics in accordance with the teaching of Mandal et al.. This modification improves the data security as the representation is a hash.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”), US Application Publication US20150341350A1 (“Mandal et al.”) and US20040250085A1 (“Tattan et al.”).
Regarding claim 5, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., in further view of Giraud and Mandal et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al., Giraud and Mandal et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein a random salt is added to the hash.
However, Tattan et al. discloses:
wherein a random salt is added to the hash. (¶0214)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al., Giraud and Mandal et al. by adding random salt to a hash in accordance with the teaching of Mandal et al.. This modification reduces the risk of hash collisions and improves the data security.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), and in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and International Publication WO2022137136A1 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 6, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the code generator controller is 6. configured to generate the code in as an optical code and wherein the voting device comprises an optical scanner to decode the optical code.
However, Lee discloses:
wherein the code generator controller is 6. configured to generate the code in as an optical code and wherein the voting device comprises an optical scanner to decode the optical code. (¶¶0014-15)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including utilizing optical code for voter authentication in accordance with the teaching of Lee. This modification provides convenience while improves the security and user experience.
Regarding claim 8, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., in further view of Giraud and Lee discloses all limitations as described above. Lee further discloses:
wherein the verification device is configured to transmit the optical code to a mobile communication device associated with the voter.(¶0017)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by utilizing optical code for voter authentication in accordance with the teaching of Lee. This modification provides convenience while improves the security and user experience.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”), International Publication WO2022137136A1 (“Lee”) and US Application Publication US20220406115A1 (“Mazza et al.”).
Regarding claim 7, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud and Lee discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al., Giraud and Lee do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the verification device comprises a printer which is configured to print the optical code on paper.
However, Mazza et al. discloses:
wherein the verification device comprises a printer which is configured to print the optical code on paper. (¶0007 and ¶0019)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al., Giraud and Lee by including a printer to print the optical code on paper in accordance with the teaching of Mazza et al.. This modification provides more ways for voter to receive the confirmation code.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), and in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US10411894B1 (“Yavnilovich et al.”).
Regarding claim 9, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein
the code generator controller is configured to encode a validity time period in the code; and
the code verifier controller is configured to verify the validity time period.
However, Yavnilovich et al. discloses:
wherein
the code generator controller is configured to encode a validity time period in the code; and (col 19 lines 22-25)
the code verifier controller is configured to verify the validity time period. (col 19 lines 22-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including time limited code in accordance with the teaching of Yavnilovich et al.. This modification improves voting security by setting a time limit on the code. Hence, vote can be only casted within the predetermined time.
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), and in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US10673623B2 (“Horowitz et al.”).
Regarding claim 10, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the storage is encrypted storage and wherein a cryptographic key uniquely associated with the voting device is required to decrypt the storage.
However, Horowitz et al. discloses:
wherein the storage is encrypted storage and wherein a cryptographic key uniquely associated with the voting device is required to decrypt the storage.(abs)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by encrypting storage in accordance with the teaching of Horowitz et al.. This modification improves data security.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), and in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US10979225B1 (“Shiralkar et al.”).
Regarding claim 11, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the vote recording controller stores the vote in an anonymized form so that a voter ID cannot be associated with a cast vote.
However, Shiralkar discloses:
wherein the vote recording controller stores the vote in an anonymized form so that a voter ID cannot be associated with a cast vote. (abs)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by anonymizing vote in accordance with the teaching of Shiralkar et al.. This modification improves data privacy.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), and in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US5412727A (“Drexler et al.”).
Regarding claim 12, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the vote recording controller stores the unique ID against the vote.
However, Drexler et al. discloses:
wherein the vote recording controller stores the unique ID against the vote. (col 3 lines 25-28)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by recording the unique ID with the vote in accordance with the teaching of Drexler et al.. This modification enables the system to track whether a voter casted the vote.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US Application Publication US20220198864A1 (“Ge”).
Regarding claim 14, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al., and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein at least one of the following conditions applies:
the verification controller is configured to receive the indication that the voter is blind from the voter biometrics database;
the voting flow controller is further configured to randomize the order of voting options.
However, Ge discloses:
wherein at least one of the following conditions applies:
the verification controller is configured to receive the indication that the voter is blind from the voter biometrics database; (¶0054)
the voting flow controller is further configured to randomize the order of voting options.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including an indication that the voter is blind in the voter database in accordance with the teaching of Ge. This modification enables the combined system to support visually impaired voter in participating in voting.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US Application Publication US20040155108A1 (“Saito”).
Regarding claim 16, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the voting device is configured so that only the vote recording controller may write data to the storage.
However, Saito discloses:
wherein the voting device is configured so that only the vote recording controller may write data to the storage. (Figs. 1 and 5 item 30, Fig. 6 step D5; ¶0022)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including that only the vote recording controller may write data to the storage in accordance with the teaching of Saito. This modification improves the security of the voting system by restricting write access of vote data.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US Application Publication US20130264384A1 (“Wadia”).
Regarding claim 22, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al., and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the system is configured for randomising on-screen positional display of the voting options.
However, Wadia discloses:
wherein the system is configured for randomising on-screen positional display of the voting options. (¶0032)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by randomizing on-screen positional display in accordance with the teaching of Wadia. This modification reduces predictability of the display and improves the voting provicy.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US Application Publication US20060261951A1 (“Koerner et al.”).
Regarding claim 24, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the offline voting device comprises a voting booth comprising a housing comprising a tamper sensing subsystem comprising a plurality of reflectors configured to reflect a beam from a transmitter to a receiver and wherein tampering is detected by the tamper sensing subsystem by interruption or discontinuity of the beam.
However, Koerner et al. discloses:
wherein the offline voting device comprises a voting booth comprising a housing comprising a tamper sensing subsystem comprising a plurality of reflectors configured to reflect a beam from a transmitter to a receiver and wherein tampering is detected by the tamper sensing subsystem by interruption or discontinuity of the beam. (¶0028 and ¶¶0098-99)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including a tamper sensing subsystem in accordance with the teaching of Koerner et al.. This modification improves the security of the voting system.
Regarding claim 25, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the beam with an encoding and wherein the receiver is configured to decode the encoding for verification.
However, Koerner et al. discloses:
wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the beam with an encoding and wherein the receiver is configured to decode the encoding for verification. (¶0031, ¶0038 and ¶¶0098-99)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including encoding the data in motion in accordance with the teaching of Koerner et al.. This modification improves the security of the voting system.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US5875432 (“Sehr”) in view of US Application Publication US20200027297A1 (“Obradovic et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US11204991B1 (“Giraud”) and US Application Publication US20230334788A1 (“Zohni”).
Regarding claim 27, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al., and Giraud do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the headset comprises a secondary front panel spaced apart from the front panel and having a respective further pair of eye apertures therethrough.
However, Zohni discloses:
wherein the headset comprises a secondary front panel spaced apart from the front panel and having a respective further pair of eye apertures therethrough. (¶0074)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Sehr, Obradovic et al. and Giraud by including a secondary front panel spaced apart from the front panel and having a respective further pair of eye apertures therethrough in accordance with the teaching of Zohni. This modification improves the improves visual clarity.
Regarding claim 15, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al., and Giraud do not explicitly disclose “wherein the storage is configured for connection via a point-to-point wired data interface to transfer the vote to a vote database.” However, Examiner takes Official Notice that establishing a direct wired connection to a database to transfer information to storage is old and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system to include direct wired connection to a database to transfer information to storage in order to improve security.
Regarding claim 17, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al., and Giraud do not explicitly disclose “wherein the verification device optically transmits the code to the voting device.” However, Examiner takes Official Notice that optical transmission of code to voting device is old and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system to include optical transmission of code to voting device in order to improve convenience, efficiency and security.
Regarding claim 18, Sehr in view of Obradovic et al., and in further view of Giraud discloses all limitations as described above. Sehr, Obradovic et al., and Giraud do not explicitly disclose “wherein the verification device optically transmits the code to the voting device across an airgap.” However, Examiner takes Official Notice that optical transmission of code to an airgap voting device is old and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system to include optical transmission of code to voting device in order to improve convenience, efficiency and security.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20070241190A1 (“Perez”) discloses an electronic voting system and methods, which, among other things, provides increased transparency to the public and verification for the individual voters regarding the tallying of their respective votes. A business method involves the use of general purpose computer hardware together with a software platform, made up of one or more open-source or proprietary certified software programs, including a voting software program. A voting record can be made available electronically, thereby eliminating the need to provide a voter with a paper ballot. A voting record identifier is generated without use of, or reference to, voter identity. The voting record identifier is provided to the voter, such that the voter can access a record of his ballot selections and vote number sequence. In addition, a biometric authentication mechanism is provided to reduce, or eliminate, the potential that a voter is able to vote more than once. Novel business methods further include supplying the general purpose computers to voting administrators, processing them and re-purposing the machines by placing them in the hands of eleemosynary institutions or organizations which promote or manage educational services, particularly for children.
US20230394901A1(“Sarkar et al.”) discloses a method and system for securing electronic ballot systems. The method including: receiving, by an electronic voting machine (EVM), user data from a user device, the user data including a unique code; presenting, by the EVM, an interface, the interface capable of receiving a vote; generating, by the EVM, a command based on the user data and the vote; determining, by the EVM, that the command is valid; encrypting, by the EVM, the vote and the user data; and writing, by the EVM, the vote to a secure memory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697