DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/23/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/23/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 9 and 20):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
A method of providing a voting service through a user terminal, the method comprising: (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
receiving a request related to a page from a user; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
processing, when the request is a request related to a first type page, the request related to the first type page by communicating with a content delivery network (CDN); (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
processing, when the request is a request related to a second type page, the request related to the second type page by communicating with a database server, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the first type page is a page provided while a voting service category is active, and the second type page is a page other than the first type page. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 2-8 and 10-19 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 9 and 20):
…a user terminal
…a database server
…a server system
…a content delivery network (CDN) server
…at least one processor
…a memory
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
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 of this title, 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 1-7, 9-11, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onischuk (USPGP 2018/0350180 A1) hereinafter ONISCHUK.
Claims 1, 9, 20:
ONISCHUK as shown below discloses the following limitations:
A method of providing a voting service through a user terminal, the method comprising: (see at least paragraph 0003)
receiving a request related to a page from a user; (see at least paragraph 0148)
processing, when the request is a request related to a first type page, the request related to the first type page by communicating with a content delivery network (CDN); (see at least paragraphs 0003, 0025)
processing, when the request is a request related to a second type page, the request related to the second type page by communicating with a database server, (see at least paragraphs 0052, 0146)
wherein the first type page is a page provided while a voting service category is active, and the second type page is a page other than the first type page. (see at least paragraphs 0129, 0524)
ONISCHUK does not specifically disclose each of the above limitations within a single embodiment. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify method of ONISCHUK because I improves the accuracy, time and money savings of compiling Voter lists. (ONISCHUK: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 2:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processing of the request related to the first type page comprises processing a display request for the first type page, and the processing of the display request for the first type page comprises:
transmitting the display request to the CDN;
receiving page information comprising a hypertext markup language (HTML) file that is not prepared for rendering from any CDN server included in the CDN; and
displaying the first type page on a screen of the user terminal based on the page information.
See at least paragraphs 0062, 0479, 0492, 0524; Figure 17 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 3:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processing of the request related to the second type page comprises processing a connection request for the second type page, and the processing of the display request for the second type page comprises:
transmitting the display request to the database server;
receiving page information comprising an HTML file that is prepared for rendering from the database server; and
displaying the second type page on a screen of the user terminal based on the page information.
See at least paragraphs 0062, 0479, 0492, 0524; Figure 17 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 4:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first type page includes:
a selection page from which at least one of a plurality of options is selectable; and
a voting complete page that displays voting results after submitting voting information based on the option selected from the selection page.
See at least paragraph 0085; Figure 5 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 5:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
wherein, from the selection page, an image for each of the plurality of options and a frame object corresponding to a selectable number of options are displayed, and an image of an option selected from the plurality of options is displayed within the frame object.
See at least paragraph 0085; Figure 18 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 6:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
wherein, from the selection page, a name for each of the plurality of options is displayed, and the plurality of options are arranged and displayed based on the name.
See at least paragraph 0085; Figures 5, 18 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 7:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first type page further comprises a post-selection page that requests a user to confirm whether to submit the voting information or that notifies whether the voting information is eligible for submission, prior to submission of the voting information.
See at least paragraphs 0047 and 0085.
Claim 10:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
transmitting a standby request to each user terminal that has transmitted the requests remaining after excluding the selected requests while the selected requests are being processed.
See at least paragraphs 0041, 0068, and 0536.
Claim 11:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in processing a submission request for voting information through the first type page, the processing comprises:
determining whether to authorize each of the selected requests;
collecting voting information corresponding to an authorized request among the selected requests;
blocking an unauthorized request among the selected requests.
See at least paragraphs 0337, 0498.
Claim 16:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
storing the collected voting information in a database as voting raw data according to a predetermined schema;
receiving a post-verification instruction from an administrator authorized using signature information;
determining validity of each piece of the collected voting information based on the voting raw data according to the post-verification instruction; and
determining voting information determined to be valid as final valid voting information.
See at least paragraphs 0034, 0037, 0150, and 0336.
Claims 18, 19:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK further discloses the following limitations:
storing the collected voting information in a database as voting raw data according to a predetermined schema;
authorizing an external server, that is authorized to verify data and had passed a predetermined signature information-based authentication process, to access the voting raw data;
receiving a verification result confirming integrity of the voting raw data from the external server.
transmitting a signal indicating that the voting raw data is verified data to any user terminal using the voting service.
See at least paragraphs 0045, 0150, 0492, 0646
Claim 8, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONISCHUK and further in view of Examiner’s OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Claim 8:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK does not specifically disclose:
wherein, from the post-selection page, a submit button for submitting the voting information is displayed, and upon selection of the submit button, a selected option, a human interaction proof (HIP) interface, and a confirmation button are displayed, upon selection of the confirmation button after passing HIP, a video advertisement is played automatically, and when the video advertisement is finished playing, the page is switched to the voting complete page.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the computing arts to program selection buttons and play advertisements to users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of ONISCHUK with the technique of user interface display programming because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 12-15, 17:
ONISCHUK discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ONISCHUK does not specifically disclose:
wherein the determining of whether to authorize each of the selected requests comprises determining, a request transmitted more than a predetermined number of times from a user terminal to which an identical internet protocol (IP) address is assigned, a request transmitted for more than once through a browser with identical browser identification information, or a request transmitted through a browser corresponding to predetermined browser identification information, as an unauthorized request.
wherein the determining of whether to authorize each of the selected requests comprises:
identifying a combination of signature information for authenticating a voting service application installed on each of user terminals that transmitted the selected requests, and unique identification information of each of the user terminals; and
determining a request transmitted from a user terminal of which the combination is identified more than once as an unauthorized request.
wherein the determining of whether to authorize each of the selected requests comprises:
determining, based on a package name and an installation directory of a voting service application installed on each of user terminals that transmitted the selected requests, whether a clone application of the voting service application is installed on each of the user terminals; and
determining a request transmitted from a user terminal determined to have the clone application installed as an unauthorized request.
wherein the determining of whether to authorize each of the selected requests comprises:
determining, based on chipset information of a central processing unit (CPU) of each of user terminals that transmitted the selected requests, whether an emulator for a voting service application is installed on each of the user terminals; and
determining a request transmitted from a user terminal determined to have the emulator installed as an unauthorized request.
wherein the determining of the validity of each piece of the collected voting information comprises:
identifying, among pieces of the voting raw data, voting raw data in which an email address included in the voting raw data is a temporary address;
determining voting information corresponding to the identified voting raw data as invalid voting information.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the online computing arts to maintain the practice of protecting sensitive data and systems—both digital and physical—from unauthorized access, modification, or destruction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of ONISCHUK with the technique of NFOSEC practices, encryption protocols, hardware security, cybersecurity, etc., because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
International IDEA. “Introducing Electronic Voting: Essential Considerations.” (December 2011). Retrieved online 07/20/2026. introducing-electronic-voting.pdf
Relevancy: “Technology upgrades in elections are always challenging projects that require careful deliberation and planning. Introducing electronic voting (also called e-voting) is probably the most difficult upgrade as this technology touches the core of the entire electoral process—the casting and counting of the votes. E-voting greatly reduces direct human control and influence in this process. This provides an opportunity for solving some old electoral problems, but also introduces a whole range of new concerns. As a consequence, e-voting usually triggers more criticism and opposition and is more disputed than any other information technology (IT) application in elections.” (ABSTRACT)
Jamie Brown et al. “E-voting System: Specification and Design Document.” (March 6, 2003). Retrieved online 07/20/2026. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiB9_7hp-KVAxW5F1kFHV7dFqcQFnoECBgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.jhu.edu%2F~rubin%2Fcourses%2Fsp03%2Fgroup-reports%2Fgroup2%2Fgroup2_design.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1QZJY4vjHg6Q5qt5ddlZeo&opi=89978449
Relevancy: “During the 2000 General Elections, America realized that our election process is not perfect. To some people, the use of technology will solve all the problems, while others realized that elections could only be improved with technology. Elections are unlike any other transactional event. The result of a national election can have so much at stake, from money, power, to dreams or even lives. While technology can improve our election process, there needs to also exist an improvement in election policy. The policy improvements will help bridge the gap where technology will fall short.” (Introduction)
Foreign Art:
EKIMOV S. “System For Voting By Multiple Individual Voters, Comprises Multiple Ballots For Voting At Election Station In Election, And Each Ballot Having First And Second Sheets Having Identical Voting Information For Recording Vote.” (WO 2020/227799 A1)
Relevancy: “The system comprises multiple ballots for voting at an election station in an election, and each ballot having first and second sheets having identical voting information for recording a vote. The first and second sheets are attached together such that the first sheet overlays the second sheet and the identical voting information of the sheets overlap. The first sheet receives a first mark recording a vote by unit of a writing implement. The first and second sheets are identified as a counting ballot when marked by a vote. A vote reader is provided for reading the unique identifier (32) and the vote for each of the counting ballots. A computer database is coupled to the vote reader for recording the vote and matching it to the unique identifier of the ballot associated with vote.” (ABSTRACT)
BACKERT et al. “Integrity Ensuring Method For Electronic Ballot In Election System, Involves Creating Validation Pages Based On Retrieved Electronic Ballots, And Presenting Validation Pages To Voters To Confirm Votes.” (WO 2009/088907 A2)
Relevancy: “The integrity ensuring method involves creating electronic ballots for voters based on votes received from the voters through an application server (104). The electronic ballots are digitally signed and stored. The signed electronic ballots are retrieved from a storage. The digital signatures on the retrieved electronic ballots are verified. Validation pages, which are based on the retrieved electronic ballots, are presented to the voters to confirm their votes.” (ABSTRACT)
GROTH et al. “Internet Based Electronic Voting System Receives Decrypted Voter Selection Data/linking Information Of Electronic Ballot, And Voter Selection Data/linking Information Of Printed Ballot, To Verify Voting.” (WO 2005/093671 A2)
Relevancy: “A voting device generates encrypted electronic ballot and printed ballot both having voter selection information and linking information. A verification system receives decrypted voter selection data/linking information of electronic ballot, and voter selection data/linking information of printed ballot, to compare voter's choices for a sample of both ballots linked by linking information so as to verify voting.” (ABSTRACT)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
Prosecution Insights