DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
The claims filed on 9/3/2025 are entered.
Claims 2 and 4-16 are pending.
Claims 2 and 9 are independent.
Claims 2, 9, and 10 are currently amended.
Claims 4-8 and 11-16 are previously presented.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “… where the validated personal information of the individual representing a residence address …” instead of “… where the validated personal information of the individual represents a residence address …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 2 and 4-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 2 and 9, Applicant argues that the claimed invention improves digital certificate technology, which is evidenced by the specification’s description of a new configuration of digital certificate technology that includes third-party checked credential information about the consumer, which is configured in a manner that anonymizes the information. Applicant points to various sections of the specification for support (see Remarks, pp. 7-9).
The argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims recite a technical improvement in digital certificates because anonymity is preserved. However, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification merely recites that the anonymized information may be facilitated by a digital certificate, and the digital certificate may be obtained in a number of ways as known in the art (see para. 0023). There is no improvement to the underlying digital certificate technology or any other technology. Using a digital certificate to facilitate a third party validating anonymized information, such as a credit score, is not an improvement to technology but rather an implementation of an abstract idea, i.e. the idea of verifying information using trusted intermediaries. The claimed invention includes use of a digital certificate to validate information while withholding user identity. Here, the use of a unique identifier to facilitate anonymity merely changes the level of abstraction of the information being validated and does not alter how the validation is technically performed. The claims are still implemented using generic computer technology, i.e., digital certificates, identifiers, and third-party verification. There is no improvement to computer functionality, security mechanisms, or certificate technology itself. Accordingly, the claims amount to applying an improved abstract idea such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103
Regarding independent claims 2 and 9, Applicant argues that Pearson does not disclose the amended features drawn to receiving “an encrypted digital certificate”. Applicant argues that Pearson merely describes a digital certificate that is in a public part of the platform identity that includes a label.
The argument is not persuasive. The term “encrypted digital certificate”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses certificates that are cryptographically protected using public-key techniques, including digital signatures, as disclosed by Pearson. Here, “encrypted”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses any use of cryptographic functions to obscure or verify data.
Regarding dependent claims 4-8 and 10-16, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as they rely on the argument addressed above.
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 2 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 2 and 4-8 are directed to a method (process) and claims 9-16 are directed to a product (manufacture). Thus, claims 2 and 4-16 fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 2 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product claim 9. Claim 2 recites the limitations of:
2. (Currently Amended) A method to facilitate secure and incentivized transfer of personal data between parties, the method comprising:
requesting, by one or more processors of a user device associated with an individual, a first device to provide and validate receive anonymized personal credential information associated with the individual and originated at the first device;
receiving, by the one or more processors, the anonymized personal credential information in an encrypted digital certificate from the first device, where the anonymized personal credential information includes a unique identifier corresponding to the individual and anonymized personal data corresponding to one or more credentials associated with the individual, the unique identifier and the anonymized personal data configured to maintain an anonymity of the individual, the one or more credentials included in the encrypted digital certificate including validated personal information corresponding to the individual;
submitting, by the one or more processors, the anonymized personal credential information to a second device; and
receiving, by the one or more processors, digital media associated with the anonymized personal credential information.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite submitting anonymized personal credential information of an individual to another party and receiving media in response. Note that the specification describes the credential information as relating to financial data, such as a score comprising information that indicates the consumer’s immediate ability to pay for products within a particular price-point range (see para. 0025). As described by the specification, consumer credential information may include indicators of financial responsibility, financial capacity, financial affluence, financial risk, etc. (see para. 0031). As such, the claim recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The “one or more processors of a user device”, “first device”, and “second device” in Claim 2 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 9 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 2: “one or more processors of a user device”, “first device”, and “second device”
Claim 9: “A device”, “one processor, “a memory”, “first device”, “second device”
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 2 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. See Applicant’s specification para. [0016-0017] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 2 and 9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims
Dependent claims 4-8 and 10-16 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 2 and 9, and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 7 and 11 recite the further additional element of requesting information at a website, which similarly amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 2 and 4-16 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Pearson (US 2003/0037233 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Pearson discloses a method (and associated user device) to facilitate secure and incentivized transfer of personal data between parties, the method comprising:
requesting, by one or more processors of a user device associated with an individual, a first device to provide and validate anonymized personal credential information associated with the individual and originated at the first device (see Figs. 2-3, wherein user requests and receives new identity);
receiving, by the one or more processors, the anonymized personal credential information in an encrypted digital certificate from the first device (see Figs. 2-3, wherein privacy CA sends new identity to user), where the anonymized personal credential information includes a unique identifier corresponding to the individual and anonymized personal data corresponding to one or more credentials associated with the individual, the unique identifier and the anonymized personal data configured to maintain an anonymity of the individual, the one or more credentials included in the encrypted digital certificate including validated personal information corresponding to the individual (see para. 0013, 0040-0042, wherein the ID is an anonymous identity certificate);
submitting, by the one or more processors, the anonymized personal credential information to a second device (see para. 0044, wherein user sends certificate to a potential third party service provider); and
receiving, by the one or more processors, digital media associated with the anonymized personal credential information (see para. 0059).
Regarding claim 5, Pearson discloses where the second device comprises a computer system associated with a merchant store, and where the anonymized personal credential information is received from the first device in an encrypted format (see paras. 0040-0042, 0055, 0059, wherein the certificate may be sent to a retailer).
Regarding claim 6, Pearson discloses where the second device comprises a computer system associated with a merchant store, and where the digital media indicates at least one of discounts associated with one or more products and customized offers for merchandise from the merchant store (see paras. 0040-0042, 0055, 0059, wherein certificate may give passport to rewards/discounts).
Regarding claim 10, Pearson discloses where the validated personal information of the individual representing a residence address, an occupation, a purchase history, shopping preferences, a credit history, a net worth, an income tax information, or a combination thereof (see para. 0035-0036, wherein age, gender, and interests represent shopping preferences).
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 7, 11, 14 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearson (US 2003/0037233 A1) in view of Steele (US 2008/0033869 A1) .
Regarding claim 4, Pearson discloses where the one or more credentials comprises validated personal information that represents shopping preferences of the individual (see para. 0035-0036, wherein age, gender, and interests represent shopping preferences).
Pearson does not explicitly disclose, but Steele teaches personal information that represents a purchase history of the individual (see para. 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the credentials of Pearson to include wherein the validated personal information includes information that represents a purchase history of the individual so the consumer can use this information to request one or more products or services (see Steele, para. 0092).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Pearson discloses where the requesting to receive the anonymized personal credential information comprises requesting from the first device to receive the anonymized personal credential information (see Figs. 2-3).
Pearson does not explicitly disclose, but Steele teaches requesting information at a website (see para. 0035, i.e., a consumer homepage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the request of Pearson to include requesting at a website because a website is a convenient way for a consumer to submit an application (see Steele, para. 0035).
Regarding claim 14, Pearson does not explicitly disclose, but Steele teaches where the at least one processor is further configured to store, the anonymized personal credential information to a portable storage medium, and where the anonymized personal credential information corresponds to a digital certificate (see para. 0041, 0161).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Pearson to include the features taught by Steele discussed above to enable consumers to transmit their anonymous profile to another company (see Steele, para. 0161).
Regarding claim 16, Pearson discloses where the digital certificate includes validated personal data of the individual, and where the second device is configured to use the validated personal data to determine an analytic score or credit worthiness corresponding to the individual (see para. 0018, 0059).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearson (US 2003/0037233 A1) in view of Steele (US 2008/0033869 A1), further in view of Parmelee (US 8,261,975).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Pearson, as discussed above, discloses providing a digital certificate to a user device; the user providing the digital certificate to a second device; and transferring anonymized personal credential information corresponding to the digital certificate from the user to the second device in exchange for digital media.
Pearson does not explicitly disclose, but Steele teaches where the portable storage medium is one of received at the receiving the anonymized personal credential information having the anonymized personal credential information stored thereon or provided by the individual to which the user device stores the anonymized personal credential information, and where the portable storage medium is configured to transmit the anonymized personal credential information. (see para. 0041, 0161, wherein the anonymous transaction profile is stored on a portable device which enables consumers to transmit the information to another company).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Pearson to include the features taught by Steele discussed above to enable consumers to transmit their anonymous profile to another company (see Steele, para. 0161).
Pearson and Steele do not explicitly teach, but Parmelee teaches receiving a prompt from the second device to connect the portable storage medium (see col. 18, lines 3-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Pearson further to include the features taught by Parmelee discussed above to facilitate providing instructions to the customer for using a credential that the customer already has (see col. 18, lines 3-14).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearson (US 2003/0037233 A1) in view of Duhaime (US 7,873,577 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Pearson discloses where the anonymized personal credential information corresponds to a digital certificate (see para. 0013, 0040-0042).
Pearson does not explicitly disclose, but Duhaime teaches using a portion of a transaction card identifier as a portion of an alias (see col. 11, lines 4-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the unique identifier of Pearson to include a partial credit card number.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow a financial service provider to be identified from the alias (see Duhaime, col. 11, lines 4-25).
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearson (US 2003/0037233 A1) in view of Duhaime (US 7,873,577 B1), further in view of Steele (US 2008/0033869 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Pearson discloses one or more credentials included in the digital certificate.
Pearson does not explicitly disclose, but Steele teaches data indicative of an immediate purchasing capacity of the individual (see para. 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the credentials of Pearson to include data indicative of an immediate purchasing capacity of the individual so the consumer can use this information to request one or more products or services (see Steele, para. 0092).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Camnisch (US 2002/0103999 A1) discloses a method and system for securely proving ownership of pseudonymous or anonymous electronic credentials. A credential system is described consisting of users and organizations. An organization knows a user only by a pseudonym. The pseudonyms of the same user, established for use with different organizations, cannot be linked. An organization can issue a credential to a pseudonym, and the corresponding user can prove possession of this credential to another organization that knows him under another pseudonym. During the prove of possession of the credential nothing besides the fact that he owns such a credential is revealed. A refinement of the credential system provides credentials for unlimited use, so called multiple-show credentials, and credentials for one-time use, so called one-show credentials
Marsh (US 2009/0150238 A1) discloses a system and method for the reversible leasing of anonymous user data in exchange for personalized content including targeted advertisements includes: (a) helping users gather and manage data representing their interests (404); (b) distilling this data to a condensed and anonymous form (434); (c) making it easy to review, edit, and add to this data; (d) providing a simple way for sites to ask for this data (414); (e) enabling users to grant reversible access to a site with one click (432); (f) providing sites with multiple ways to access and use this data once the user has granted access (424) and (g) motivating the user to keep their data accurate and up-to-date (403). In this manner, Internet users can lease data to web sites in a way that is convenient, secure, and under user control, respecting the user desire for transparency and privacy, and avoiding the complexity and trust issues experienced by both users and web sites when utilizing identity management systems.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693