DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on May 27, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The rejections and a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art are stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a method for completing a signature validated transaction using an end user device, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 1 is directed to a method (process).
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A method for completing a signature validated transaction using an end user device having a plurality of identification elements associated with a user, the method comprising:
initiating a request, by the user on the end user device, for a signature authorization of an electronic file representing a document as part of a signature validated transaction;
establishing a secured connection between the end user device and a clearinghouse device;
transmitting, from the end user device to the clearinghouse device, the electronic file representing the document and a first random set of identification elements comprising an identification image and at least one additional identification attribute, the identification image including at least one jurisdiction attribute;
receiving, from the clearinghouse device, an indication that an identification credential metric associated with the first random set of identification elements is below a first predetermined threshold associated with a credentials database in an external device;
transmitting, from the end user device to the clearinghouse device, a second random set of identification elements in response to the indication; and
receiving, on the end user device, an amended electronic file representing the document, the electronic file being amended by attaching an electronic signature validation to the electronic file if an identification credential metric associated with the second random set of identification elements is above the first predetermined threshold associated with the credentials database, the electronic signature validation associated with a signature authorizing agent for the signature validated transaction” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
“Completing a signature validated transaction” is a fundamental economic practice such as completing a transaction. The step of “receiving, on the end user device, an amended electronic file representing the document, the electronic file being amended by attaching an electronic signature validation to the electronic file if an identification credential metric associated with the second random set of identification elements is above the first predetermined threshold associated with the credentials database, the electronic signature validation associated with a signature authorizing agent for the signature validated transaction” is a form of fulfilling agreements between the parties to the transaction. Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
That is, other than, an end user device, a network interface, a secure connection with a clearinghouse device, a processor, coupled to the network interface, an electronic file, an electronic signature, and a credentials database, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of an end user device, a network interface, a secure connection with a clearinghouse device, a processor coupled to the network interface, an electronic file, an electronic signature, and a credentials database to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-2 and associated descriptions in the Specification reveals that the end user device, the network interface, the clearinghouse device, the processor, the credentials database, the electronic signature and the electronic file are all suitably programmed generic computer components to perform their respective functions. The secure connection may be any secure communication connection known in the art to perform the associated function. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claim 13 is also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale.
Dependent claims 2-12, and 14-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claims 2-3 and 15-16, the steps “wherein the first random set of user identification elements includes an identification image and at least one additional identification attribute, the identification image including at least one jurisdiction attribute” and “wherein the identification credential metric associated with the first random set of user identification elements is generated using at least one machine learning technique to compare the first random set of identification elements to the credentials database, the at least one machine learning technique generating a jurisdiction metric using a location associated with the requested signature validation transaction and the at least one jurisdiction attribute, as part of the identification credential metric” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process. The additional element of at least one machine learning technique/model, is broadly interpreted to include a suitably programmed software that performs a traditional function recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In claim 14, the step “further comprising a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing a plurality of identification elements associated with a user” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the memory used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process. The additional element of the memory storing a plurality of identification elements associated with a user, is a suitably programmed memory that performs a traditional function recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In claims 4-5 and 17-18, the steps “wherein the jurisdiction metric is determined by applying at least one machine learning technique to generate a jurisdiction verification metric using a training model associated with a jurisdiction attribute identified from the identification image”, “wherein the at least one machine learning technique uses a training model associated with at least one credential attribute from the identification image, the at least one credential attribute including at least one of a jurisdiction of issue, an address for the cardholder, a birthdate for the cardholder, an identification number, an expiration date, a hologram, and a cardholder photo” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 6-7 and 19-20, the steps “wherein the identification credential metric associated with the first random set of identification elements is further generated using a training model associated with at least one credential attribute from the identification image, the at least one credential attribute including at least one of a jurisdiction of issue, an address for the cardholder, a birthdate for the cardholder, an identification number, an expiration date, a hologram, and a cardholder photo” and “wherein the training model for the at least one machine learning technique is updated based on an evaluation of at least one of the first random set of user identification elements and the second random set of user identification elements” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process. The additional element of training model in the claims, is broadly interpreted to include a suitably programmed software that performs a traditional function recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In claims 8-9, the steps “wherein the at least one machine learning algorithm is further used to generate a legal compliance score for the signature validated transaction using at least one of a signature authorization certificate and a notarial seal which is associated with a jurisdiction of the signature authorizing agent and providing the legal compliance score to a signature authorizing agent device used by the signature authorizing agent” and “wherein the at least one machine learning technique is further used to generate a venue validity score by applying the at least one machine learning technique to generate a venue verification metric using a training model associated with the location of the signature authorized transaction and a database of venues, the venue validity score being provided to signature authorizing agent device used by the signature authorizing agent” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 10-11, the steps “wherein the identification image is at least one of a driver's license, a government issued identification card, and a passport” and “wherein the end user device is at least one of a laptop and tablet and mobile device and mobile phone and computer” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the identification image and the suitably programmed generic user devices used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claim 12, the step “wherein the signature authorizing agent is at least one of a notary public, a required witness of a document, and a government official having responsibility for certification of a document” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the signature authorizing agent used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-20 would be allowable, over prior art, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
The closest prior art of record, (Richard Triola et al. (US Pub. 2019/0319948 A1) and International Game Technology (US Pub. 2013/0303275 A1)), considered individually or in combination, fail to teach the steps of “receiving, on the end user device, an amended electronic file representing the document, the electronic file being amended by attaching an electronic signature validation to the electronic file if an identification credential metric associated with the second random set of identification elements is above the first predetermined threshold associated with the credentials database, the electronic signature validation associated with a signature authorizing agent for the signature validated transaction”. Page 3 of 13Appl. No.: 14/331,106For these reasons claims 1 and 13 are deemed allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 are allowable over prior art by virtue of dependency on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
(a) Archer; Branden Michael et al. (US Pub. 20260031997 A1) discloses systems and techniques for authenticating a user by matching a trusted identification credential with on-device identity verification in generating an authentication token. For example, a request to verify an identity of a current user of the first communications device is received from a second communications device. A trusted identification credential associated with stored biometric information of a designated user is accessed. A sensor of the first communications device is used to collect captured biometric information of the current user. A verification is performed to determine if the captured biometric information matches the stored biometric information. Responsive to determining that the captured biometric information matches the stored biometric information, an authentication token is generated including a cryptographically signed assertion that includes the nonce received from the second communications device and an assertion confirming the match between
(b) Punnoose; Josen et al. (US Pub. 2024/0420267 A1) discloses generating authentication credentials that includes receiving from a first user input identifying a customer identifier for an online account with a business or organization and a residential or business physical address, and sending via a network a notification to a first user system to follow instructions on a mail piece to be received by the first user. The mail piece is physically sent via a distribution network to the physical address and an online application is activated in response to scanning a coded indicia on the mail piece. Data indicative of an identity of the first user is received and the identity of the first user is verified based on at least information associated with the coded indicia and the received data. A recommendation is generated whether to approve the online account and an electronic credential is created for the first user based on acceptance of the online account.
6. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights