Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1, 4-8, 13, and 15-17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed May 24, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant assert the claims cannot be performed in the mind. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because verifying people and identification documentation can be performed mentally.
Second, Applicant assert the claims reflect a practical application because conventional system lack integrated workflows. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Third, Applicant asserts the claims reflect an improvement because the aggregation of modalities prevents spoofing. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing Trading Techs.) That is, using multiple forms of verification to prevent one from being overcome reflects an improvement in identity verification and not an improvement in a technology. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn because the cited references do not teach all the newly amended limitations, particularly the aggregating score to the timestamp. Please see below for the new rejections of the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities claim 4 appears to contain a typo and should be amended as “…wherein the document [[the]] authenticity score is determined using layout analysis…” 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-12 are directed to a process; and claims 13-20 are directed to a machine.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized)1:
…receiving, via a client device, an image of a government-issued identification document submitted by a user;
extracting user identification information from the identification document image using optical character recognition (OCR);
identifying and extracting a facial image from the identification document image;
prompting the user to capture a real-time selfie image via the client device in response to a randomized pose instruction;
analyzing the real-time selfie image for compliance with the randomized pose instructions;
comparing the extracted facial image to the selfie image using facial recognition to determine a facial similarity score;
determining a document authenticity score based on at least one of a layout analysis, a security feature analysis, or an issuing-authority validation of the government-issued identification document:
in response to determining that the selfie image fails to comply with the randomized pose instruction or that a risk score satisfies a fallback threshold, selecting an alternative verification modality from among voice input, device motion input, or fallback facial analysis;
performing the selected alternative verification modality to generate a modality-specific verification score;
aggregating, by an identity verification server, at least the facial similarity score, the document authenticity score, pose compliance information, and the modality- specific verification score to compute a composite verification score;
comparing the composite verification score to a plurality of thresholds comprising an approval threshold, a rejection threshold, and an intermediate manual- review range;
generating a verification decision comprising approval, rejection, or manual-review escalation based on the composite verification score relative to the plurality of thresholds; and
storing, in an audit log, a verification record comprising the verification decision, contributing verification scores, fallback usage information, and timestamp information.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitation encompass a mental process (i.e. observation, evaluation, and judgment). These limitations encompass a mental process because these limitations essentially encompass verifying a user's identify based on comparing new images and information with existing images and information and verifying their identification documentation. That is, these limitations encompass observation (observing the current images of someone and images and the information in an identification document), evaluation and judgment (determining if the person in the current images are who they claim to be based on images and information in an identification document and determining the authenticity of the identification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of limitations in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1 and 13 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…receiving, via a client device, an image of a government-issued identification document submitted by a user;
extracting user identification information from the identification document image using optical character recognition (OCR);
identifying and extracting a facial image from the identification document image;
prompting the user to capture a real-time selfie image via the client device in response to a randomized pose instruction;
analyzing the real-time selfie image for compliance with the randomized pose instructions;
comparing the extracted facial image to the selfie image using facial recognition to determine a facial similarity score;
determining a document authenticity score based on at least one of a layout analysis, a security feature analysis, or an issuing-authority validation of the government-issued identification document:
in response to determining that the selfie image fails to comply with the randomized pose instruction or that a risk score satisfies a fallback threshold, selecting an alternative verification modality from among voice input, device motion input, or fallback facial analysis;
performing the selected alternative verification modality to generate a modality-specific verification score;
aggregating, by an identity verification server, at least the facial similarity score, the document authenticity score, pose compliance information, and the modality- specific verification score to compute a composite verification score;
comparing the composite verification score to a plurality of thresholds comprising an approval threshold, a rejection threshold, and an intermediate manual- review range;
generating a verification decision comprising approval, rejection, or manual-review escalation based on the composite verification score relative to the plurality of thresholds; and
storing, in an audit log, a verification record comprising the verification decision, contributing verification scores, fallback usage information, and timestamp information.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of receiving an image of a government-issued identification document, prompting the user, and storing the audit log, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving, sending and storing data (e.g., receiving stored data, displaying messages and storing data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of using OCR and using facial recognition, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited too broadly and generally to be more than general links to fields of use or technological environments, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment (i.e., image analysis techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the independent claims recite the additional elements of a client device, a processor, a memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 1 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do 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, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and general links to fields of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and general links to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 13 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2 and 14 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the identification document being one of the recited options is still a part of verifying people’s identities.
Claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because using information like the name on the identification document is still a part of verifying people’s identities.
Claims 4, 5 and 15 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because using security features to score a document is a part of verifying people’s identification documentation.
Claims 6, 16 and 18 recite the additional elements of storing various information in the audit log. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of storing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of voice or motion identification. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited too broadly and generally to be more than general links to fields of use or technological environments, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment (i.e., voice or motion analysis techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of querying an external service and using the response. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of sending and receiving data (i.e., sending the data and receiving response data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 9 and 19 recite the additional elements of using neural network based facial recognition. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited too broadly and generally to be more than general links to fields of use or technological environments, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment (i.e., identity verification techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of notifying based on a failed verification. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data (e.g., displaying results data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of voice input or motion patterns. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited too broadly and generally to be more than general links to fields of use or technological environments, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment (i.e., identity verification techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 12 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because using external identity validation service is still a part of verifying people’s identities.
Claims 17 and 20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because denying access or triggering an alert is a part of verifying people’s identities.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0371445, herein referred to as “Walker”, in view of Cheung et al, US Pub. No. 2009/0169062, herein referred to as “Cheung”, further in view of Ionita, US Pub. No. 2018/0048645, herein referred to as “Ionita”
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches:
receiving, via a client device, an image of a government-issued identification document submitted by a user (image is taken of a security documents, e.g., ¶¶[0115], [0156] and Fig. 3; see also ¶[0106] noting security document includes a passport and originates from the government; and e.g., ¶¶[0020], [0148] discussing devices);
extracting user identification information from the identification document image using optical character recognition (OCR) (captures information from the security document using OCR, e.g., ¶¶[0028], [0157] and Fig. 3);
identifying and extracting a facial image from the identification document image (captures photograph from the security document, ¶[0117]; see also ¶¶[0030], [0037] discussing using facial recognition to compare the photograph on the security document to the document holder);
comparing the extracted facial image to the selfie image using facial recognition to determine a facial similarity score (compares captured image of document holder to photograph on the security document using facial recognition, e.g., ¶¶[0030], [0037], [0159], [0191] and provides a measure value (e.g. a number between 0 and 100) to be output which is a measure of whether the security document belongs to the document holder, ¶[0179]; see also ¶¶[0123]-[0124] discussing using Haar cascade algorithm);
determining a document authenticity score based on at least one of a layout analysis, a security feature analysis, or an issuing-authority validation of the government-issued identification document (uses security features as protection against forgeries, ¶¶[0026], [0042], [0181]-[0182]; see also ¶¶[0089], [0176]-[0177] discussing verifying the layout of the document);
comparing the composite verification score to an intermediate manual- review range;
generating a verification decision comprising approval, rejection, or manual-review escalation based on the composite verification score relative to the plurality of thresholds (generates warning closer inspection of the identity is necessary in a particular case, ¶¶[0043], [0179]);
and storing, in an audit log, a verification record comprising the verification decision, contributing verification scores, fallback usage information (stores captured data and results of comparison, ¶[0161]).
However Walker does nor teach but Cheung does teach:
prompting the user to capture a real-time selfie image via the client device in response to a randomized pose instruction (sends request for the image of the person to be within the particular pose and/or holding the particular object, ¶¶[0065], [0072] and Fig. 4; see also ¶[0019] discussing instructions being unusual poses; and ¶[0041] discussing user taking pictures of themselves, and Fig. 5 showing example pictures).
analyzing the real-time selfie image for compliance with the randomized pose instructions (determines whether the person in the second digital image is in the particular pose and/or holding the particular object, ¶[0066]);
in response to determining that the selfie image fails to comply with the randomized pose instruction or that a risk score satisfies a fallback threshold selecting an alternative verification modality from among voice input, device motion input, or fallback facial analysis (if first image is rejected, requests, another image, ¶[0077] and Fig. 4);
performing the selected alternative verification modality to generate a modality-specific verification score (repeats verification process with second image, ¶[0077] and Fig. 4).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the inspection of a security document of Walker with the pose analysis of Cheung because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users may wish to not only verify users in person (as in Walker) but also verify users over various communication mediums (e.g., social networks as in Cheung) and accordingly would have modified Walker to include a pose analysis process to verify users over communication mediums (e.g., social networks as in Cheung).
However the combination of Walker and Cheung does not teach but Ionita does teach:
aggregating, by an identity verification server, at least the facial similarity score, the document authenticity score, pose compliance information, and the modality- specific verification score to compute a composite verification score (combines scores into final matching score, e.g., ¶¶[0110], [0146]);
comparing the composite verification score to a plurality of thresholds comprising an approval threshold, a rejection threshold, and an intermediate manual- review range (compares final score against threshold to verify the identity as true or not, ¶¶[0110], [0146]);
and storing, in an audit log, timestamp information, (time stamps captured information, ¶[0051])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the inspection of a security document with the pose analysis of Walker and Cheung with the combination of scores of Ionita because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users in Walker and Cheung would likely be verifying multiple aspects of an identity and accordingly would have modified Walker and Cheung to combine scores from the multiple aspects of the identity verification, e.g., as taught by Ionita.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Walker further teaches:
wherein the government-issued identification document comprises at least one of a passport, a driver's license, or a national identity card (passport, ¶[0106]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Walker further teaches:
wherein the extracted user identification information includes at least one of: name, date of birth, document number, or expiration date (verifies name of document holder, ¶¶[0015], [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Walker further teaches:
wherein the document the authenticity score is determined using layout analysis or the security feature analysis (uses security features as protection against forgeries, ¶¶[0026], [0042], [0181]-[0182]; see also ¶¶[0089], [0176]-[0177] discussing verifying the layout of the document; and ¶[0187] discussing alarms based on forgeries).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Ionita further teaches:
comprising rejecting the user's identity verification if the composite verification score is below the rejection threshold (compares final score against threshold to verify the identity as true or not, ¶¶[0110], [0146]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the inspection of a security document with the pose analysis of Walker and Cheung with the combination of scores of Ionita because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users in Walker and Cheung would likely be verifying multiple aspects of an identity and accordingly would have modified Walker and Cheung to combine scores from the multiple aspects of the identity verification, e.g., as taught by Ionita.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Walker further teaches:
wherein the verification record stored in the audit log further comprises the extracted user identification information and the facial similarity score (stores captured data and results of comparison, ¶[0161]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Walker further teaches:
wherein the selected alternative verification modality comprises voice input or device motion input (voice analysis, ¶[0198]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Walker further teaches:
querying an external identity validation service using extracted document data, and using a response from the external identity validation service or a timeout condition to determine the document authenticity score (compares security features against database, ¶¶[0181]-[0182]; see also ¶[0120] discussing using cloud architecture).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Ionita further teaches:
wherein the comparison between the facial image and the selfie image is performed using a machine learning model comprising a neural network trained on biometric features (uses neural network for biometric authentication, ¶[0046]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the inspection of a security document with the pose analysis of Walker and Cheung with neural network based recognition Ionita because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have modified Walker and Cheung to use neural network based facial recognition for situations where neural network based facial recognition is advantageous (e.g., when superior speed and accuracy is desirable).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Walker further teaches:
notifying an administrator or third- party service if the verification fails or if the document is flagged as suspicious (displays results of comparison, e.g., ¶¶[0160], [0179] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Walker further teaches:
verification using voice input or device motion patterns (voice analysis, ¶[0198]).
However Walker does not teach but Cheung does teach
in response to a failed pose compliance check, performing fallback verification (performs additional verification if first verification fails, ¶¶[0072], [0074] and Fig. 4)
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the inspection of a security document of Walker with the pose analysis of Cheung because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users may wish to not only verify users in person (as in Walker) but also verify users over various communication mediums (e.g., social networks as in Cheung) and accordingly would have modified Walker to include a pose analysis process to verify users over communication mediums (e.g., social networks as in Cheung).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Walker further teaches:
querying an external identity validation service using extracted document data (compares security features against database, ¶¶[0181]-[0182]),
and adjusting the verification outcome based on the received response or a timeout condition (analysis is based on multiple features of security document, e.g., ¶[0189] and Fig. 5; see also ¶[0120] discussing using cloud architecture).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and further recites a processor; a memory coupled to the processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, which are taught by Walker in, e.g., ¶[0148]. Accordingly claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons s claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 2 and accordingly is rejected for similar reasons claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 4 and accordingly is rejected for similar reasons claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 6 and accordingly is rejected for similar reasons claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Walker further teaches:
further cause the system to deny access or trigger an alert if the composite verification score is below the rejection threshold (displays results of comparison and triggers alarms based on discrepancies, e.g., ¶¶[0160], [0179] and Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Walker further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the system to log the extracted identification data and the verification result to a persistent identity verification database (stores captured data and results of comparison, ¶[0161]).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 9 and accordingly is rejected for similar reasons claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Walker, Cheung and Ionita teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Walker further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the system to deny access or trigger an alert if the similarity score falls below a predefined threshold (displays results of comparison and triggers alarms based on discrepancies, e.g., ¶¶[0160], [0179] and Fig. 3)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Examiner notes the exact language of claims 1 and 13 differs slightly but does not find these differences significantly alter the eligibility analysis and accordingly analyzes the claims concurrently here for the sake of brevity)
Prosecution Insights