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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. See remarks on page 9-10.
The rejection of pending claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, is maintained in view of MPEP 2106.04(d). See remarks on page 8-9.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
Claims 1, and 3-7 are directed to an apparatus, claims 8, and 10-14 is directed to a method (process), and claims 15, and 17-20 are directed toward an article of manufacture. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groups: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independents claims 1, 8, and 15 include limitations that recite at least one abstract idea.
Claim 1, 8 and 15 is directed to the abstract idea of “receive, from a digital wallet of a consumer connected to the processor, one or more verifiable credentials from the consumer, wherein the one or more verifiable credentials include one or more elements of identity data; determine, by the processor, weights of the one or more elements of identity data from the one or more verifiable credentials; calculate, by the processor, a digital identity score based on the one or more elements of identity data and the weights using a verifiable credential protocol configured to allow validation by one or more independent verifiers; cause a consumer device to display a graphical user interface configured to display information associated with the digital identity score based on a zero- knowledge proof that facilitates verification of the digital identity score without exposure of one or more credentials or underlying personal information associated with the digital identity score, wherein the information comprises the digital identity score, one or more indications of respective types of one or more of the elements of identity data, one or more issuers of the one or more of the elements of identity data, and one or more indications of trust associated with the one or more of the elements of identity data; encrypt data related to the one or more elements of identity data to generate encrypted data; and send, by the processor, the digital identity score and the encrypted data as an identity score verifiable credential to the digital wallet of the consumer, wherein the encrypted data indicates the weights and a manner by which the weights were used to calculate the digital identity score.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim is calculating score based on various identity date, hence falls under organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices–mitigating risk).
Dependent Claims:
Claims 3 and 10 recites: receive validation of the digital identity score by verifying an accuracy of the one or more verifiable credentials; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices–mitigating risk).
Claims 4, 11, 17 recites: further comprising verifying a cardholder by confirming a digital identification; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices–mitigating risk).
Claims 5, 12, and 18 recites: the identifying further comprising: graphically listing, in a graphical listing of the plurality of merchants, the verified merchant in a position higher relative to a position of the unverified merchant; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices–mitigating risk).
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recites: the identifying further comprising: graphically listing, in a graphical listing of the plurality of merchants, the verified merchant in a position higher relative to a position of the unverified merchant; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices–mitigating risk).
Claim 7 recites: determining that a risk value of the cardholder is below a threshold, wherein the plurality of cardholder verification data points includes personal identification information of the cardholder, credit history, and payment history; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices–mitigating risk).
Claim 14 recites: wherein the result set further comprises: at least one unverified merchant; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices–mitigating risk).
Claim 20 recites: wherein the result set further comprises: at least one unverified merchant; further describes the abstract idea of organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices–mitigating risk).
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Claim 1, 8 and 15 recites to a generic computing environment, as an additional element to the judicial exception in the preamble. Viewed individually and in combination, this additional element to the identified judicial exception of Step 2A.1, amounts to no more than mere instructions for calculating score based on various identity date on a generic computer. Therefore, at Step 2A.2, these additional elements do not act in combination to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1, 8 and 15 considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a generic computer does no more than “[s]imply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.” See MPEP 2106.05 (citing to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014)).
Therefore claims 1, 8 and 15 is found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B:
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of “organizing human activity” (i.e., as fundamental economic practices –mitigating risk) in evaluating merchants and using the verification of merchants and cardholders to authorize transactions is performed by a generic computer. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson-Morgan et al. (US 20220277295 A1) in view of Boal at al. (US 20140180826), in view of Houseworth et. Al (US 20190303552 A1), in view of Schukai et. Al (WO 2017213719 A1), in view of Rodriguez et. Al (US 10853592 B2), and further in view of Camenisch et. Al (US 20170359184 A1).
6. Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Robinson-Morgan discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a processor, (Fig. 2, Processor),
Robinson-Morgan discloses a memory unit storing computer-executable instructions, which when executed by the processor, (para 0018, computer-executable instructions stored in memory and executable by the mobile device),
Robinson-Morgan discloses cause the apparatus to receive, from a digital wallet of a consumer connected to the processor, one or more verifiable credentials from the consumer, wherein the one or more verifiable credentials include one or more elements of identity data; (para. 0027, the mobile device 102 is configured by the CCO (complex claims orchestrator)122 to provision one or more credentials to the digital wallet 120. For example, the mobile device 102 may be configured, by the identity application 110, to receive an instruction from the user 104 to enroll a credential),
Robinson-Morgan discloses one or more elements of identity data from the one or more verifiable credentials; (para. 0012, provide for verification of complex user claims made by users, through digital identities of the users, by relying on multiple credentials within the digital identities. In particular, as credentials are provisioned to a digital identity for a user, an identity of the user is compiled based on the different attributes in the different credentials. For example, one credential may include certain attributes for the user, while another credential may have different attributes for the user and one common attribute (e.g., a name, etc.)).
Robinson-Morgan discloses encrypt data related to the one or more elements of identity data to generate encrypted data, (para. 0054, sign the credential by a private key (as an issuer of the credential, etc.), prior to issuing the credential (at 310), and publish a corresponding public key to a repository (e.g., at a payment network or identity provider computing device associated with the identity application).
Robinson-Morgan does not explicitly disclose determine, by the processor, weights of the one or more elements of identity data from the one or more verifiable credentials.
Boal teaches determine, by the processor, weights of the one or more elements of identity data from the one or more verifiable credentials; (para. 0287, may be weighted higher in identifying a correlation than matching values in less unique fields, such as name, gender, or age).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boal to the known invention of Robinson-Morgan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such digital identity features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to include determining the weights of the elements of identity data from the verifiable credentials results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the consumer’s verifiable credentials are ranked properly according to data given, as some credentials may be weighted higher if the credentials correlate or lower if the credentials contradict, thus improving the overall useability of the invention.
Robinson-Morgan does not explicitly disclose calculate, by the processor, a score based on the weights using a verifiable credential protocol configured to allow validation by one or more independent verifiers.
However, Boal teaches calculate, by the processor, a score based on the weights using a verifiable credential protocol configured to allow validation by one or more independent verifiers (Para. 0055, a data processing system for facilitating consumer identity resolution comprises: a first logic module adapted to receive at least two collections of consumer records from at least two different sources, the first collection including a set of first data fields and the second collection including a set of second data fields; a second logic module adapted to compute a set of first trust scores for the first data fields and a set of second trust scores for the second data fields; a third logic module adapted to generate a master collection of consumer records comprising at least one master consumer record that is correlated to at least one record from the first collection and to at least one record from the second collection, the correlation being based on at least one of the first trust scores and at least one of the second trust scores; and a fourth logic module adapted to receive a set of contextual transaction data. The data processing system is adapted to identify a consumer based on the contextual transaction data and the master collection of consumer records.; and Para. 0143, offer parameter optimizer 1583 may receive, and may analyze, contextual transaction data received directly or indirectly from a retailer or other terminal that is facilitating a consumer electronic transaction, such as the contextual transaction data 1345 discussed in connection with the embodiment of FIG. 13A. In various embodiments, contextual transaction data may include any of a variety of information related to one or more consumer transactions conducted within a facility owned, controlled or operated by a retailer, including without limitation basket-level transaction details such as universal product codes and quantities purchased, total number of items purchased, transaction amounts, payment details (e.g., a credit card number, a payment identifier, a secure payment hash key), information about a data processing system, logic module or facility where the transaction takes place (e.g., terminal 1340 or store 1330), time, date, offers applied during the transactions, information relating to the customer conducting the transaction (e.g., a name, a phone number, a pin number, a password, a code, a loyalty card number, other biometric or personal identification data, etc.), RFID data, a device identifier, items that were purchased in a previous or concurrent transaction, a transaction number, and so forth.; and Para. 0297, For example, multiple master consumer records may be located for the same credential values. However, based on the trust scores associated with these credential values in the respective master consumer records, one of the master consumer records may be a significantly more trustworthy match, and thus ranked higher. Or, based on the confidence scores, it may be apparent that a particular credential value appears much more frequently in the source consumer records correlated to a first master consumer record than in the source consumer records correlated to a second master record. Thus, the first master record is ranked higher.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boal to the known invention of Robinson-Morgan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such digital identity features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the device to include calculate, by the processor, a score based on the weights using a verifiable credential protocol configured to allow validation by one or more independent verifiers results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the consumer’s verifiable credentials are ranked properly according to data given, as some credentials may be weighted higher if the credentials correlate or lower if the credentials contradict, thus improving the overall useability of the invention, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
Robinson-Morgan as modified does not explicitly disclose send, by the processor, the digital identity score and the encrypted data as an identity score verifiable credential to in the digital wallet of the consumer, wherein the encrypted data indicates the weights and a manner by which the weights were used to calculate the digital identity score.
However, Schukai teaches send, by the processor, the digital identity score and the encrypted data as an identity score verifiable credential in the digital wallet of the consumer, wherein the encrypted data indicates the weights and a manner by which the weights were used to calculate the digital identity score, (Para. 24-27 , In an exemplary embodiment, to create and maintain the user profile, the identity score system receives identity data from an identity user related to one or more identities of the identity user, such as government-issued identities, commercial identities, social media accounts, biometric traits, etc. The identity score system also receives validation data from an identity provider that issued the identity, indicating whether the received identity data is valid. If the validation data indicates that the identity data is valid, the identity system generates a transaction to the blockchain system to store data based on the validated identity on the blockchain, such as a cryptographic encoding of the identity or validation data. The identity score system then transmits the transaction to at least one distributed node of the blockchain system, initiating a block creation process by which the blockchain system incorporates the transaction, and stores the data, on the blockchain. Embodiments of the identity score system also enable the provision of identity scores or score data based on the validated identities represented on the blockchain to entities performing identification of the identity user. The identity score may be configured to accommodate different identification contexts, such as, e.g., to provide an improved indication that the identity user is who is the identity user claims to be, to provide an improved indication of whether the identity user is suited to engage in a particular commercial transaction, to enable improved operation of a security device or system, etc. As the identity score is based on the data stored on the blockchain for the validated identity, it also provides a more reliable, immutable and secure identification. [26] In an exemplary embodiment, to provide a score service, the identity score system receives an identity score request from a score requestor, such as a government, commercial or other system, for an identity user on whom the score requestor is performing an identification. In response, the identity system executes a read to at least one distributed node of the blockchain system to retrieve data representing the validated identities of the identity user stored on the blockchain. Function data defining the calculation of the identity score is then determined, such as, e.g., weights indicating the relative importance of each identity to the score. The identity score is then calculated according to the retrieved validated identities and determined function data, such as by summing factors based on the weights…Embodiments of the identity score system also may maintain the determined function data and/or identity scores on the blockchain, enabling provision of a fast and easy score service to the score requestor, and also creating an immutable and reliable history of this data over time). Examiner interprets the term digital wallet is analogous for the term user profile in the cited prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Schukai to the known invention of Robinson-Morgan as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such digital identity features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the device to include send, by the processor, the digital identity score and the encrypted data as an identity score verifiable credential to in the digital wallet of the consumer, wherein the encrypted data indicates the weights and a manner by which the weights were used to calculate the digital identity score results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the weights determining how digital identity score are securely transmitted and stored to prevent unauthorized users, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Robinson-Morgan as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the information comprises the digital identity score, one or more indications of respective types of one or more of the elements of identity data, one or more issuers of the one or more of the elements of identity data, and one or more indications of trust associated with the one or more of the elements of identity data.
However, Rodriguez teaches wherein the information comprises the digital identity score, one or more indications of respective types of one or more of the elements of identity data, one or more issuers of the one or more of the elements of identity data, and one or more indications of trust associated with the one or more of the elements of identity data., (Column 27/line 19, The data item may be a visual image of the entity, which may be a user. For example, two visual images of the user may be included in the message: the first an identification photo captured from a real-world identity document; the second a photo of the user's face which they have taken with a camera (“selfie”). Facial recognition may be used to determine how close a match the two data items are, and the confidence value allocated based on the comparison to reflect this. The presenting entity is thus told the extent to which the user's faces matches whatever form of identity document hey have used to create the profile. The confidence value may change over time. For instance as the user uploads more data items e.g. selfies, which may in some embodiments be required to log in to the digital identity system and stored at the digital identity system each time, this may assert a positive influence on the confidence value causing it to (at least in the absence of other influences) increase, provided the photos do indeed match (whereas photos for which the match is questionable may have the opposite effect). Similarly, as the entity completes additional transaction this may exert a similarly positive influence. Conversely, where the data item(s) in the digital profile are captured from, say, a real-world identify document, as the document ages this may assert a negative influence on the confidence value causing it to (at least in the absence of other influences) decrease.; and Column 32/line 12, To address this an embodiment of the invention introduces the concept of contingent trust, whereby a user's identity profile has an associated profile confidence value “CV1” n for 2, 3, 4 based upon the quality and source of identity documents associated with it, and its historic usage. The way this works in practice is that the multiple sources of identity data are allowed, and for each a level of trust is assigned.; and Column 68/line 62, The digital identity system according may comprise a confidence value allocation module configured to allocate a confidence value to the profile based on at least one of: a type of the received data item and a source of the data item.e) Examiner interprets the term digital identity score is analogous for the term confidence value in the cited prior art. Examiner interprets one or more indications of trust associated with the one or more of the elements of identity data is analogous for the concept of contingent trust, whereby a user's identity profile has an associated profile confidence value “CV1” n for 2, 3, 4 based upon the quality and source of identity documents associated with it, and its historic usage in the cited prior art.
.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Rodriguez to the known invention of Robinson-Morgan as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such digital identity features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the device to include wherein the information comprises the digital identity score, one or more indications of respective types of one or more of the elements of identity data, one or more issuers of the one or more of the elements of identity data, and one or more indications of trust associated with the one or more of the elements of identity data results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that users can make better decisions with their digital identity scire, thus improving the overall user convenience of the invention.
Robinson-Morgan as modified does not explicitly disclose cause a consumer device to display a graphical user interface configured to display information associated with the digital identity score based on a zero- knowledge proof that facilitates verification of the digital identity score without exposure of one or more credentials or underlying personal information associated with the digital identity score,
However, Camenisch teaches cause a consumer device to display a graphical user interface configured to display information associated with the digital identity score based on a zero- knowledge proof that facilitates verification of the digital identity score without exposure of one or more credentials or underlying personal information associated with the digital identity score, (Para. 0003, A cryptographic credential is essentially a certificate generated via a cryptographic process by a credential issuing authority who has verified the information certified by the credential. This information is cryptographically encoded in the credential to certify correctness of the information. The items of information certified by a credential are commonly referred to as “attributes”. An attribute can represent any item of information, relating, for instance, to some property, characteristic, quality, role, qualification, or other feature describing or otherwise associated with a user or user computer. The user computer storing the attribute credential can then use the credential in communications with a verifier computer to demonstrate authorization to access a restricted resource, and in particular that one or more attributes in the credential satisfy the access condition for the resource. One common example is where a user computer connects to a remote server via the Internet and requests requesting access to a restricted web site, with verification of an appropriate cryptographic credential being required before access is permitted.; and Para. 0006-0007, The method comprises, at a user computer, storing an attribute credential certifying a set of attributes; and communicating with a revocation authority computer to obtain an auxiliary credential, bound to the attribute credential, certifying a validity status for each attribute in the attribute credential. The method further comprises, at the user computer, communicating with the verifier computer to prove possession of the attribute credential and the auxiliary credential such that the verifier computer can determine whether at least one attribute in the attribute credential, certified as valid by the auxiliary credential, satisfies an access condition for the resource… the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium embodying program instructions executable by a user computer to cause the user computer to perform the foregoing method. In another embodiment of the invention a system for authorizing access to a resource is provided, the system comprising a verifier computer which controls access to the resource, a user computer adapted to perform the foregoing method, and a revocation authority computer which is adapted to generate the auxiliary credential and to send the auxiliary credential to the user computer.; and Para. 0025, FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of an non-limiting exemplary computer system 1 for implementing authorization methods embodying the invention. The system 1 includes a user computer 2, in this example a general-purpose user PC (personal computer) 2, and a revocation authority computer, here a server 3 operated by a trusted Revocation Authority. System 1 further includes a verifier computer, here a server 4, which controls access to a resource, in this example a database 5. User PC 2 is operable to communicate with revocation authority (RA) server 3 and verifier server 4 via a network 6. Network 6 may in general comprise one or more component networks and/or internetworks, including the Internet, and may include wired and/or wireless network links. Access to database 5 may be requested by user PC 2 by connecting to verifier server 4 via network 6. Permission to access the database is dependent on a credential-based authorization process detailed below. In this process, user PC 2 must demonstrate possession of a cryptographic attribute credential certifying one or more attributes which satisfy a verifier-defined access condition. It must also be demonstrated in this process that the required attributes are currently valid, i.e. have not been revoked. In exemplary embodiments, the validity status of attributes in attribute credentials is attested via auxiliary credentials issued by RA computer 3.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Camenisch to the known invention of Robinson-Morgan as modified would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such digital identity features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the device to include cause a consumer device to display a graphical user interface configured to display information associated with the digital identity score based on a zero- knowledge proof that facilitates verification of the digital identity score without exposure of one or more credentials or underlying personal information associated with the digital identity score results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that the user can view their digital identity score without exposing sensitive data, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
7. Regarding claims 3, and 10, Robinson-Morgan further discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: receive validation of the digital identity score by verifying an accuracy of the one or more verifiable credentials, (para. 0077, the CCO potentially ensures the validity of the credentials (e.g., that the credentials are not expired, that the credentials are not altered, that the credentials are not cancelled, etc.).
8. Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Robinson-Morgan discloses wherein the weights of the one or more elements of identity data from the one or more verifiable credentials is based on one or more of an issuer of each of the one or more verifiable credentials, specific elements from the one or more elements of identity data, or a correlation or contradiction of the various elements of identity data from the one or more verifiable credentials, (para. 0033, an issuer of the credential to the digital wallet 1 and para. 0056, the attributes of the user's identity from the credential (e.g., name, mailing address, birthdate, driver's license number, etc., and para. 0071, Table 1 illustrates example credentials upon which the assurance level may be generated for the identity claims, and corresponding strength). Examiner interprets that the term elements is analogous for the term attributes in the cited prior art. Examiner also interprets the that the term corresponding is analogous for the term correlation in the cited prior art.
9. Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Robinson-Morgan discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: scan, by the processor, the one or more verifiable credentials to obtain information needed for an insurance quotation; and automatically generate, by the processor, the insurance quotation with the information from the one or more verifiable credentials, (para. 0016, Each of the applications 110-120 included at the mobile device 102 include computer-executable instructions, which are stored in the mobile device 102 and, when executed, cause the mobile device 102 to perform operations indicated by the type of the given application; para 0033, For instance, when the mobile device 102 is configured by the identity application 110 (and/or a backend associated therewith) to issue the credential, for example, a driver's license of the user 104, etc., to the digital wallet 120 or CCO 122 (e.g., upon receiving a scan thereof, upon retrieving the credential from an identity provider, etc.), the mobile device 102 (e.g., the identity application 110, CCO 122, and/or corresponding backend, etc.) may also be configured to sign the credential by a private key of the identity application 110 (and/or backend) (as an issuer of the credential to the digital wallet 120, etc.) and publish a corresponding public key to a repository (e.g., at a payment network or identity provider computing device (e.g., implemented as blockchain or other suitable immutable or mutable data structure(s), etc.), etc.), or otherwise. Consequently, thereafter, upon receipt of an attribute inquiry or request for an identity claim associated with (or linked to) the credential, by the relying party 106, the issuer of the credential may be identified by the relying party 106 (e.g., by a particular ID associated with the identity application 110 and provided by the mobile device 102 to the relying party 106 as part of the response to the request, etc.).
10. Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Robinson-Morgan discloses wherein the consumer selects the one or more verifiable credentials and the one or more elements of identity data to be used for calculating the digital identity score, (para 0067, the user 104 may specifically select the identity claims to share). Examiner interprets the that the phrase consumer selectively picks is analogous for the phrase user may specifically select in the cited prior art.
11. Regarding claim 7, Robinson-Morgan discloses discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: determine, by the processor, the weights via a machine learning algorithm trained to recognize authentic identity claims based on data associated with the one or more verifiable credentials that were presented or omitted, (para. 0031, the mobile device 102 is configured, by the CCO 122, to build or resolve, over time, the identity of the user 104 as the identity in the digital wallet 120, with each identity claim by the user 104 and/or attribute of the user's identity associated with at least one credential, and certain credentials linked to authentication of certain attributes). Examiner interprets that the phrase computer-executable instructions are analogous for the phrase mobile device is configured, by the CCO.
12. Regarding claim 14, Robinson-Morgan discloses calculating, by the processor, historical calculations of digital identity scores (para. 0056, In response, the CCO 122 generates an identity claim and links the identity claim to the credential, at 312. More specifically, the CCO 122 pulls the attributes of the user's identity from the credential (e.g., name, mailing address, birthdate, driver's license number, etc.), adds the attributes to the identity of the user 104 (in the mobile device 102), and then links the attributes to the specific credential being provisioned). Examiner interprets that the term calculating in the instant claims is analogous to the term generates in the cited prior art.
Robinson-Morgan does not explicitly disclose wherein the calculating, by the processor, includes calculating via a machine learning algorithm the digital identity score based on learning trends and historical calculations of digital identity scores.
However, Boal teaches wherein the calculating, by the processor, includes calculating via a machine learning algorithm the digital identity score based on learning trends and historical calculations of digital identity scores, (see Boal, para. 0398, trends may be discovered using certain machine learning techniques trained to identify various combinations of factors that produce results that are out of the ordinary).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boal to the known invention of Robinson-Morgan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such digital identity features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to include calculating via a machine learning algorithm the digital identity score based on learning trends and historical calculations of digital identity scores results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that authentic identity claims based on the data that was presented or omitted/unavailable are recognized and provide a dynamic identity score that could be reissued to the consumer, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
13. Regarding claim 20, Robinson-Morgan does not explicitly disclose but Boal teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, storing further instructions that, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to: determine and re-calculate, by a machine learning algorithm executing on the processor, the weights and the digital identity score based on learning trends and historical calculations of digital identity scores, (para. 0738, client 520 is a general-purpose computer that comprises one or more processors, and memory, mass storage device, or other non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions which, when loaded and executed, cause the one or more processors to perform the operations that are further described herein; and para. 0071, historical transaction records may be, or may include contextual transaction data 1345 that was generated in connection with previous transactions, has been stored in a memory, may have been further processed and refined, and which can now be retrieved and used as a basis for further data processing and decision making).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boal to the known invention of Robinson-Morgan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved invention. It would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such digital identity features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the invention to include determining and re-calculating, by a machine learning algorithm executing on the processor, the weights and the digital identity score based on learning trends and historical calculations of digital identity scores results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that authentic identity claims based on the data that was presented or omitted/unavailable are recognized and provide a dynamic identity score that could be reissued to the consumer, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Distributed Training using Actor-Critic Reinforcement Learning with Off-Policy Correction Factors (US 20210034970 A1) teaches methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for training an action selection neural network used to select actions to be performed by an agent interacting with an environment. In one aspect, a system comprises a plurality of actor computing units and a plurality of learner computing units. The actor computing units generate experience tuple trajectories that are used by the learner computing units to update learner action selection neural network parameters using a reinforcement learning technique. The reinforcement learning technique may be an off-policy actor critic reinforcement learning technique.
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 extension fee 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.
In addition to the foregoing, other aspects are described in the claims, drawings, and text. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Davida L. King whose telephone number is (571) 272-4724. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/D.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699