DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is the Final Office Action in response to Amendment filed on July 15, 2026 for Application No. 19/427,141 filed on December 19, 2025, title: “System And Method For Automated Scam Detection”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. By the 07/15/2026 Amendment, claims 1 and 11 have been amended, and no claim has been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application was filed on 12/19/2025 and is a CIP of US Application 19/201,339, filed on 05/07/2025 which is a CIP of US Application 18/903,138 filed on 10/01/2024.
Note: It is noted that the present Application contains new information that are not present in the parent Applications 19/201,339 and 18/903,138. The new information is present at least in paragraphs 121-151 and Figures 17-19. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the 12/19/2025 is considered to be the effective filing date for the present Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement listing all relevant reference(s) is not enclosed to this Application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Application No. 19/201,339 and (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to a system and method for third party initiated identity verification comprising: a communication interface configured to receive a transaction request associated with a sender and a counterparty; identify counterparty information associated with the transaction request; initiate a verification process with a scam monitoring system using the counterparty information; transmit a verification request to the counterparty; receive counterparty payment purpose information; perform identity verification checks on the counterparty; generate a verification result based on the identity verification checks and the counterparty payment purpose information; and provide the verification result to a third party for processing of the transaction. In this manner, the system and method automatically process and determine the legitimacy of communications and identities (scam detection and prevention). The examined Application and the referenced Application are directed to the same invention for automated scam detection, have the same inventors, and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. (Note: It is noted that Application 19/201,339 has been allowed on 03/31/2026 and a patent has not been issued).
Application No. 19/427,141
Patent No. 12,626261
Claim 11, A method for third party initiated identity verification comprising:
Claim 11, A method for verifying an identity of a counterparty, the method comprising:
receiving a transaction request associated with a sender and a counterparty;
receiving, by a system comprising one or more processors and a memory, identifying information for the counterparty provided by a user, the identifying information comprising at least one of an email address or a phone number;
identifying counterparty information associated with the transaction request;
initiating a verification process with a scam monitoring system using the counterparty information;
transmitting a verification request to the counterparty;
transmitting a consent prompt to the counterparty via a communication channel associated with the identifying information wherein the consent prompt comprises a prompt for the counterparty to consent in a identification validation process initiated by the user;
receiving counterparty payment purpose information in response to the verification request;
receiving, from the counterparty, consent to participate in an identity verification process and additional identity data comprising a full name and an approximate geographic location;
performing identity verification checks on the counterparty;
wherein performing identity verification checks comprises:
determining whether an email address or phone number associated with the counterparty is indicative of a temporary account by identifying a provider associated with the email address or phone number and determining whether the email address or phone number is associated with a one-time-use service or disposable identity;
determining whether the full name is historically associated with the identifying information;
determining whether the identifying information is associated with a temporary account by identifying a service provider associated with the identifying information and querying a status of the account;
analyzing device indicators comprising device fingerprint information and geolocation information associated with a device of the counterparty;
analyzing a device fingerprint of a device used by the counterparty and correlating the fingerprint with historical records linked to the identifying information;
correlating the device indicators with historical patterns to determine whether the device exhibits a persistent association with the email address or phone number associated with the counterparty;
responsive to determining that results of the identity verification checks are inconclusive, requesting an alternative contact identifier from the counterparty and performing a supplementary verification process using the alternative contact identifier; and
responsive to determining that the supplementary verification process remains inconclusive, initiating a biometric identity proofing process comprising:
receiving a government-issued identity document;
receiving a facial image;
comparing the facial image to an image on the government-issued identity document; and
evaluating the facial image for manipulation;
generating a verification result based on the identity verification checks and the counterparty payment purpose information; and
generating a scam risk score based on results of the determining and analyzing operations; and
presenting the scam risk score and one or more recommendations to the user based on the scam risk score;
wherein the scam risk score is calculated by aggregating weighted values assigned to results of individual verification operations.
providing the verification result to a third party.
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.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-10 recite a system for third party initiated identity verification comprising a communication interface, processors, and memories storing instructions, and claims 11-20 recite a method for third party initiated identity verification comprising a series of steps. Therefore, the claims recite a machine and process which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 11, A method for third party initiated identity verification comprising:
receiving a transaction request associated with a sender and a counterparty;
identifying counterparty information associated with the transaction request;
initiating a verification process with a scam monitoring system using the counterparty information;
transmitting a verification request to the counterparty;
receiving counterparty payment purpose information in response to the verification request; (data gathering – insignificant pre-solution activities)
performing identity verification checks on the counterparty;
wherein performing identity verification checks comprises:
determining whether an email address or phone number associated with the counterparty is indicative of a temporary account by identifying a provider associated with the email address or phone number and determining whether the email address or phone number is associated with a one-time-use service or disposable identity;
analyzing device indicators comprising device fingerprint information and geolocation information associated with a device of the counterparty;
correlating the device indicators with historical patterns to determine whether the device exhibits a persistent association with the email address or phone number associated with the counterparty; (identity verification checks “first verification process” - a method of organizing human activity)
responsive to determining that results of the identity verification checks are inconclusive, requesting an alternative contact identifier from the counterparty and performing a supplementary verification process using the alternative contact identifier; and (supplementary verification process “second verification process” – a method of organizing human activity –)
responsive to determining that the supplementary verification process remains inconclusive, initiating a biometric identity proofing process comprising:
receiving a government-issued identity document;
receiving a facial image;
comparing the facial image to an image on the government-issued identity
document; and
evaluating the facial image for manipulation; (biometric identity proofing process “third verification process” – a method of organizing human activity)
generating a verification result based on the identity verification checks and the counterparty payment purpose information; and
providing the verification result to a third party. (outputting the verification results – post solution activity)
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of automated scam detection and prevention which is a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a system comprising a communication interface, processors, memories with stored instructions, and a scam monitoring system – see claim 1). More specifically, the claim recites a process for a third party to initiate an identity verification to determine the legitimacy of communications and identities (scam detection and prevention) and generate the results to a third party via the three verification processes, such as the identity verification checks, supplementary verification process, and biometric identity proofing process. The claim recites concepts correspond to a method of organizing human activity, specifically to a fundamental economic practice – mitigating risk before authorization (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and a commercial interaction – managing business relations (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The mere nominal recitation of computer components (a system comprising a communication interface, processors, and memories with storing instructions) do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Therefore, the claim recites a method of organizing human activity and is an abstract idea.
Moreover, the method steps in the claim body (such as receiving, identifying, initiating, transmitting, receiving, performing, determining, analyzing, correlating, requesting, initiating, receiving, receiving, comparing, evaluating, generating, and providing) are devoid of any reference to any computer or machine. None of the steps in the claim body is clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil or in a human mind. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also recites a Mental Process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
While claim 11 is addressed above, the analysis above can be applied to claim 1 where the processors and memories also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Similarly, the non-transitory computer- readable medium of claim 17 is an additional element that serves as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. The mere nominal recitation of computer components does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, this claim also recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The independent claims (1 and 11) recite the additional elements, such as the system comprising a communication interface, processors, and memories with stored instructions, and the scam monitoring system, all are recited at a high level of generality and the limitations are done by the generically recited computer system (see Specification in paragraphs 52-72, 156, 159, 161 and Figures 1-2) to perform the receiving, identifying, initiating, transmitting, receiving, performing, determining, analyzing, correlating, requesting, initiating, receiving, receiving, comparing, evaluating, generating, and providing steps. Applicant’s Specification, paragraph 156, describes that “Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer.”. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computing system and require no more than a generic computer to perform the generic computer functions. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As noted in above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of automated scam detection and prevention by receiving a transaction request, identifying counterparty information, initiating a verification process with a scam monitoring system, transmitting a verification request, receiving counterparty payment purpose information, performing the identity verification checks, supplementary identity verification process, biometric identity proofing process, and then providing the generated verification result to a third party. All these generic computer functions are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
The independent claims (1 and 11) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 element of using a computer to perform the receiving, identifying, initiating, transmitting, receiving, performing, determining, analyzing, correlating, requesting, initiating, receiving, receiving, comparing, evaluating, generating, and providing functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend on claims 1 and 11 respectively and therefore include all the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea of automated scam detection and prevention.
Claims 2 and 12 further recite the additional elements “further comprising: obtaining approval from the sender prior to transmitting the verification request to the counterparty.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the approval. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 3 and 13 further recite the additional elements “wherein performing identity verification checks comprises: evaluating one or more attributes comprising device signals, email age, phone number type, location consistency, velocity of prior verification attempts, association with malicious activity, and metadata consistency.”. (Additional detailed instructions for evaluating the attributes for performing the identity verification checks. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 4 and 14 further recite the additional elements “wherein the verification result comprises: one or more classifications comprising incomplete challenge, defect condition, hard fail condition, pass condition, and error condition.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the verification result. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 5 and 15 further recite the additional elements “wherein the transaction request comprises an inbound check deposit and the counterparty comprises a purported maker of the check.”. (Additional detailed instructions for the transaction request. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 6 and 16 further recite the additional elements “further comprising: evaluating whether the counterparty is associated with mule activity based on one or more indicators comprising forwarding behavior, inconsistent responses, unverified identifiers, disposable email domains, VoIP numbers, SIM swapped devices, or prior mule history.”. (Additional detailed instructions for evaluating the counterparty. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 7 and 17 further recite the additional elements “further comprising: comparing sender supplied transaction information with counterparty supplied transaction information; and determining a narrative alignment score.”. (Additional detailed instructions for comparing the sender and determining a narrative alignment score. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 8 and 18 further recite the additional elements “wherein determining the narrative alignment score comprises: normalizing sender responses and counterparty responses into predefined transaction categories.”. (Additional detailed instructions for normalizing the sender and counterparty responses. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 9 and 19 further recite the additional elements “further comprising: evaluating the sender for potential account compromise based on one or more of device behavior, communication patterns, and identity attributes.”. (Additional detailed instructions for evaluating the sender for potential account compromise. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 10 and 20 further recite the additional elements “further comprising: generating a mule risk assessment based on one or more of the verification result, the narrative alignment score, the counterparty evaluation, and the sender evaluation.”. (Additional detailed instructions for generating a mule risk assessment. The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims add no additional elements that make the claimed invention patent-eligible and only serve to further narrow the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies in the independent claim and are thereby considered to be ineligible. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than that of claims 1 and 10 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. Merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims (1-20) is on a method for a third party to initiate an identity verification to determine the legitimacy of communications and identities via the three verification processes and generate a verification result to a third party (scam detection and prevention). The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, network, payment card, system memory, or user interface, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claims do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
In view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the DP is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Per pages 9-10 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the amended claims have been added more details for the identity verification checks and also added two more verification processes if the prior stages are inconclusive. The newly added two processes are the supplementary identity verification process and the biometric identity proofing process. Therefore, the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the added details to the identity verification checks further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the 101 analysis. Further, the newly added two verification processes makes the claim’s verification process lengthier and further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the 101 analysis – adding more verification process to an abstract idea does not make it less abstract. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant also argues that a human reviewer cannot perform the operations such as determine whether an email address is …, correlate device fingerprint telemetry against …, evaluate persistent device-identifier relationships across …, or automated escalation … because these operations require computer to process. Therefore, the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner is entitled to give the claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation. As explained in the 101 analysis, none the method steps in the claim body is clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil or in a human mind. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations can be performed in human mind which a Mental Process. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Per pages 10-12 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to a specific architecture in that they define a particular sequence of computer-implemented operations that dynamically escalates the verification process based on the quality and conclusiveness of previously obtained signals. These features are improvements over the traditional identity-proofing approaches
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “heterogeneous technical signals” and “conditional escalation mechanisms” features were not recited in the original claims, are not added until the present Amendment, and are only briefly described in the Applicant’s Specification (see paragraphs 113-114, 117-118 and Figure 16 in Publication No. 2026/0127614), and nowhere else. Thus, these features do not appear to be the focus of the claimed invention and are basically added to overcome the rejection.
The claimed invention is a method for a third party to initiate an identity verification to determine the legitimacy of communications and identities via the three verification processes and generate a verification result to a third party (scam detection and prevention). The newly added two verification processes (i.e., supplementary verification process and biometric identity proofing process) makes the claim’s verification process lengthier and further narrow the scope of the claims, but does not change the 101 analysis - adding more verification process to an abstract idea does not make it less abstract.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s claimed invention is basically automating the processes for determining the legitimacy of communications and identities and this is substantiated in paragraph 2 of the Publication. Automating a known process using a processor speeds the process and increases its accuracy, but does not make it patentable. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant also argues that the amended claims are analogous to the technical improvement found in Enfish case. Therefore, the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical technical application.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, the claims focused on improvement of a specific database technology (i.e., “self-referential data structure”) that fundamentally changes how computer stores and retrieves data, and thus improves “increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements”. The present claims do not improve a database structure. The focus of the present claims is on a method for a third party to initiate an identity verification to determine the legitimacy of communications and identities via the three verification processes and generate a verification result to a third party. The improvement is on the method itself – adding more verification process. There is no indication that the combinations of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. There is no analogy between the Enfish case and the present claims. The only analogy between the Enfish case and the present claims is that they all utilize computer technology. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Step 2B:
Per pages 12-13 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues the present claims require an ordered combination of operations including the three verification processes, such the identity verification checks, supplementary verifications process, and biometric identity proofing process. The Applicant argues that the Examiner analyzes the claims at a high level of abstraction. The Applicant argues that the present claims recite a particular layered verification framework having a specific escalation structure and specific technical analysis and that this particular arrangement of temporary-account detection is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The amended claims:
The amended claims additionally recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claims require an ordered combination of operations including:
determining whether a communication channel is associated with a temporary or disposable identity;
analyzing device fingerprint and geolocation indicators associated with a counterparty device;
correlating those indicators with historical patterns to determine a persistent relationship between the device and the claimed identity; (identity verification checks – first verification process)
conditionally invoking a supplemental verification process using an alternative identifier when previous verification stages are inconclusive; and (supplementary verification process – second verification process)
further conditionally invoking biometric identity proofing through government-issued document analysis and facial-image comparison when prior verification stages remain inconclusive (biometric identity proofing process – third verification process).
The Applicant also argues that the amended claims are analogous to the BASCOM case because the claimed arrangement constitutes an inventive concept similar found in the nonconventional arrangement of the BASCOM case. Therefore, the amended claims contain significantly more that the alleged abstract idea.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, Applicant argues against the Examiner’s previous analysis with the present amended claims is not persuasive because the claims have been extensively modified and that the previous analysis may not be applicable. Thus, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
With respect to the arguments about the present amended claims, the present claims recite a method for a third party to initiate an identity verification to determine the legitimacy of communications and identities via the three verification processes where the next verification process is performed if the result of the previous verification process is inconclusive. As explained in above, the newly added two verification processes makes the claim’s verification process lengthier and further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the 101 analysis – adding more verification process to an abstract idea does not make it less abstract. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. The improvement is on the method itself, and there is no indication that the combinations of elements (or the combination of the three verification processes) improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claimed invention is basically using the computer technology in its conventional way.
With respect to the arguments of the BASCOM case, the claims in BASCOM are directed to a method of filtering content retrieved from an internet computer network. The BASCOM court agreed that the individual elements were generic computer, network, and internet components, but a combination of the elements as a whole amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. The present claims are focused on a method for a third party to initiate an identity verification to determine the legitimacy of communications and identities via the three verification processes and generate a verification result to a third party. The improvement of the claimed invention is on the method itself - adding more verification process. There is no indication that the combinations of the elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. There is no analogy between the BASCOM case and the present claims. The only analogy between the BASCOM case and the present claims is that they all utilize computer technology. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In conclusion, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the present claims under 35 USC § 101 is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
An prior art search did not identify any art, individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every element at this time.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The arts are listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights