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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 21 are pending; claim 4 being cancelled, claim 21 being new.
The effective filing date of the present application is 09/24/2021.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration filed 11/26/2025 has been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 – 3 and 5 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step One of eligibility analysis, the claims recite a system and a method and an apparatus; therefore, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method for a brokering service to verify claims and present a verification result. They describe the inter-business relationship among an issuing entity, the brokering service, and a claiming entity. These interactions can be considered to recite commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors, as well as business relations, where the business relation is between an entity claiming certification and the entity verifying the claim, as well as the brokering service proving the verification process. Therefore, the claims describe certain methods of organizing human activity, and an abstract idea.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claims 11 and 20, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method comprising: receiving, via one or more networks, at a brokering service executed by one or more processors, and from a requesting device, a request to verify an online claim associated with an online resource and asserted by a claiming entity, the request comprising: i) a claim description that identifies the online claim and adheres to a predefined data model, and ii) a verifier token generated by the requesting device and designated for use during a verification session;
identifying, by the brokering service and based upon the request, a proving entity associated with the online claim;
receiving, at the brokering service, a corresponding message from the claiming entity, the corresponding message comprising: i) an identifier of the claiming entity; ii) metadata describing the online claim; and iii) the verifier token included in the request, the corresponding message being digital signed by the claiming entity;
correlating, by the brokering service, the request and the corresponding message based on the verifier token;
performing, by the brokering service, a multi-factor verification process with the proving entity based on the request and the corresponding message being correlated;
obtaining, by the brokering service and from the proving entity, digitally verifiable proof (DVP) that indicates that the online claim has been securely verified by the proving entity, the digitally verifiable proof comprising: i) a signed assertion of the online claim by the proving entity; and ii) a binding of the claim description to the verifier token and to the identifier of the claiming entity, the digitally verifiable proof is ephemeral, designated for use during the verification session, and generated without reliance on blockchain technology; and
providing, by the brokering service, the digitally verifiable proof to the requesting device, wherein the requesting device automatically parses the digitally verifiable proof and presents a verification result without user intervention.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 11, and 20, recite the following additional elements:
one or more networks;
a brokering service executed by one or more processors;
a requesting device;
an online claim associated with an online resource;
a verifier token generated by the requesting device and designated for use during a verification session;
metadata describing the online claim;
a digitally verifiable proof comprising: i) a signed assertion of the online claim by the proving entity; and ii) a binding of the claim description to the verifier token and to the identifier of the claiming entity;
the digitally verifiable proof is ephemeral, designated for use during the verification session, and generated without reliance on blockchain technology;
an apparatus, comprising: one or more network interfaces; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces; and a memory configured to store one or more instructions;
a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification, pages 5 - 6, and Figure 2, as filed. Applicant has also broadly defined token and DVP within the disclosure; see pages 10 and 12. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract ideas. As discussed above, the additional elements of (one or more networks; a brokering service executed by one or more processors; a requesting device; an online claim associated with an online resource; a verifier token generated by the requesting device and designated for use during a verification session; metadata describing the online claim; a digitally verifiable proof comprising: i) a signed assertion of the online claim by the proving entity; and ii) a binding of the claim description to the verifier token and to the identifier of the claiming entity; an apparatus, comprising: one or more network interfaces; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces; and a memory configured to store one or more instructions; a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. This does not provide significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 12, contain further embellishments to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 11. Recitations to a defined data model is a description of the method for a brokering service to verify claims and present a verification result. A proactive proving process is merely describing the recited method to be performed before an event occurs rather than waiting for a request. This is further descriptive of the abstract methods recited. Furthermore, these claims just recite implementing the abstract ideas on a computer – via one or more networks, by one or more processors. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 3 and 5 – 19 contain further embellishments to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 11. Recitations to digitally verifiable proofs, multifactor verification and tokens, a one-time session identifier, and who signs or has access to the proof are further descriptions of the method and tools used to verify the claims a (perform the abstract idea). New claim 21 further outlines the multi-factor verification step by adding more method steps for verifying. This claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 1. Furthermore, these claims just recite implementing the abstract ideas on a computer. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 21 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first discusses rejection of previous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 9. Applicant first remarks that the claimed combination is non-obvious over prior art and finding underscores that the claims are “… directed to a specific, unconventional technological solution…”. Page 9. The Examiner finds this argument not persuasive. Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action, and the further remarks below.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
A claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The Examiner maintains that the amended claims set forth a method for a brokering service to verify claims and present a verification result. The claims describe an inter-business relationship among an issuing entity, the brokering service, and a claiming entity. These interactions can be considered to recite commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors, as well as business relations, where the business relation is between an entity claiming certification and the entity verifying the claim, as well as the brokering service proving the verification process. Therefore, the claims describe certain methods of organizing human activity, and an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The claims are directed to a specific, technical improvement in online verification systems.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole “integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.” The amended claims describe an inter-business relationship among an issuing entity, the brokering service, and a claiming entity, all performed by merely instructing one to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, evaluation at Prong Two requires the use of the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant that the claims are directed to specific, technological improvement.
First, the amended claims recite receiving a request, identifying an entity, receiving a message, correlating the request and the message, performing a multi-factor verification process, obtaining a signed assertion, and providing proof by presenting a verification result. These recitations describe method steps to prove validity of a claim – is the online claim authentic based on validation from the issuing entity. These steps describe a process that can be performed manually, such as by providing a document with a seal or proper signature. Applicant describes performing this method with a computer. However, Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification, pages 5 - 6, and Figure 2, as filed. Applicant has also broadly defined token and DVP within the disclosure; see pages 10 and 12. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Second, no steps or components are recited within the claims that would show any improvement to a technology. As noted above, the claims recite receiving, storing, and transmitting data, utilizing one or more networks. This is merely use of a computer and other technology that recites instructs one to perform the abstract idea on that technology. Further, the specification does not explicitly set forth any improvement, nor any problem with technology, that the claimed verification method would solve. The newly added elements of an ephemeral digital proof are also not described as providing a technical solution to any technical problem. Therefore, the Examiner has determined the amended claims do not improve technology. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The claims do not merely relate to organizing human activity.
This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner replies on the similar discussion above detailing claims that describe an abstract idea. A claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The Examiner maintains that the amended claims set forth a method for a brokering service to verify claims and present a verification result. The claims describe an inter-business relationship among an issuing entity, the brokering service, and a claiming entity. These interactions can be considered to recite commercial or legal interactions in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors, as well as business relations, where the business relation is between an entity claiming certification and the entity verifying the claim, as well as the brokering service proving the verification process. Therefore, the claims describe certain methods of organizing human activity, and an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The Claims Integrate the Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
The additional elements within the amended claims These are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification, pages 5 - 6, and Figure 2, as filed. Applicant has also broadly defined token and DVP within the disclosure; see pages 10 and 12. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Step 2B: The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract ideas. As discussed above, the additional elements of (one or more networks; a brokering service executed by one or more processors; a requesting device; an online claim associated with an online resource; a verifier token generated by the requesting device and designated for use during a verification session; metadata describing the online claim; a digitally verifiable proof comprising: i) a signed assertion of the online claim by the proving entity; and ii) a binding of the claim description to the verifier token and to the identifier of the claiming entity; an apparatus, comprising: one or more network interfaces; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces; and a memory configured to store one or more instructions; a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. This does not provide significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant points to Bascom as showing similarly claimed non-traditional arrangement of known elements and thus, providing an inventive concept. See page 12. The Examiner respectfully finds this argument not persuasive. Bascom was concluded to recite a "technology-based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcome the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems. 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d at 1243. In the instant application, the disclosure does not describe any disadvantage (technical problem) of verifying online claims. Rather, the instant disclosure describes certain online claims as “…false and could lead to practices or consequences with negative connotations, for example, in terms of health, safety, or security.” Specification, page 1. Therefore, the instant application does not disclose, nor do the claims recite, any component that overcomes any disadvantage presented when verifying online claims. Because the instant claims merely recite using a computer in its ordinary capacity, (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), the instant claims are not analogous to BASCOM. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
In view of the amendments to the claims, and upon further updated research, the Examiner maintains a conclusion detailed within the Office Action filed 08/26/2025. The current claim set is distinguished over prior art.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629