DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 7/6/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/25/2026 has been entered.
a. Claims 1 are amended
b. Claims 2-7 are cancelled
Overall, claims 1, 8-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a user's mobile terminal device configured to” in claim 1; “service provider's SVP information is configured to” in claim 8; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 9; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 10; “QR code is configured to” in claim 11; “the user's DID wallet is configured to” in claim 12; “the system is configured” in claim 13; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 13; “the system is configured” in claim 15; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 15; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 17; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 18; “the system is configured to” in claim 19; “the service provider is configured to” in claim 19; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 8-20 are rejected for reciting the elements: “a user's mobile terminal device configured to” in claim 1; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 9; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 10; “the user's DID wallet is configured to” in claim 12; “the system is configured” in claim 13; “the system is configured” in claim 15; “the system is configured to” in claim 19. For these elements, there are no sufficient algorithms in the specification or drawings.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or the applicant regards as the invention. Such a claim is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the 'metes and bounds' of the protection involved (IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1140 (CA FCs 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548).
Claims 1, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim limitations “a user's mobile terminal device configured to” in claim 1; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 9; “the user DID wallet is configured to” in claim 10; “the user's DID wallet is configured to” in claim 12; “the system is configured” in claim 13; “the system is configured” in claim 15; “the system is configured to” in claim 19 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 8-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 8-20 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A blockchain based authentication and transaction system, including.
[B] a user's mobile terminal device configured to
[C] be used for a particular service;
[D] a user Distributed Identity (DID) wallet which is an application program installed on the user's mobile terminal device in order to allow the mobile terminal device to
[E] perform a user authentication,
[F] process the user authentication to confirm that a service provider is a legitimate party, and also
[G] perform an electronic signature technology for
[H] allowing an authentication value to be transmitted to a service provider's device after first confirming offline whether the device is a legitimate service provider's device; and
[I] a verifier of the service provider’s device which exchanges information with the user's mobile terminal device and the user DID wallet,
[J] wherein the user DID wallet provides a mobile mutual authentication and the electronic signature technology,
[K] wherein a user's verifiable presentation (VP) requesting information and a service provider's service verifiable presentation (SVP) information are transmitted to the user DID wallet by the verifier of the service provider,
[L] wherein the user DID wallet verifies the transmitted service provider's SVP information, and
[M] wherein the user DID wallet expresses the verified service provider's SVP information to the user on a screen of the mobile terminal device and
[N] allows a user to confirm whether the service provider is the legitimate party by verifying.
Independent claim 1 recites: performing and processing a user authentication ([E], [F]), performing an electronic signature and transmitting the authentication ([G], [H]), requesting/transmitting information and verifying it ([K], [L]), displaying the result and confirming the legitimacy ([M], [N]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “perform a user authentication”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally authenticating a user, without physical aid. Further, the step “process the user authentication to confirm that a service provider is a legitimate party”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally authenticating a user, without physical aid. Further, the step “perform an electronic signature technology”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally signing, without physical aid. Further, the step “allowing an authentication value to be transmitted to a service provider's device”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally transmitting data, without physical aid. Further, the step “wherein a user's verifiable presentation (VP) requesting information and a service provider's service verifiable presentation (SVP) information are transmitted to the user DID wallet by the verifier of the service provider”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally transmitting information, without physical aid. Further, the step “wherein the user DID wallet verifies the transmitted service provider's SVP information”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally verifying the information, without physical aid. Further, the step “wherein the user DID wallet expresses the verified service provider's SVP information to the user on a screen of the mobile terminal device”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally presenting the information, without physical aid. Further, the step “allows a user to confirm whether the service provider is the legitimate party by verifying”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally confirming the identification result, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “a user mobile terminal,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein the user DID wallet provides a mobile mutual authentication and the electronic signature technology”, as applied to the DID wallet, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: a verifier of the service provider’s device which exchanges information with the user's mobile terminal device and the user DID wallet ([I]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 1 is deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 8 recites:
include a service provider's electronic signature value, a service provider's identification information, and an electronic signature value of an issuer or a public key address.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites:
verify identification between a created electronic signature value using the service provider's public key address and the service provider's electronic signature value of the service provider's SVP.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites:
allow for submitting the user's VP to the service provider's system or to a submitter designated by the service provider's SVP only when the service provider is authenticated by the user through the screen-expressed service provider's confirmation information.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 10 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites:
wherein the service provider's SVP is a static VP of pre-generated fixed value, or a dynamic VP dynamically generated by the service provider's DID wallet at the authenticated or transacted time by
signing the pre-issued service provider's verifiable credential (VC) using a private key,
wherein the service provider's DID wallet mounts the service provider's SVP on the QR code, or provides the QR code to the user by
mounting the network access information of repository on the QR code that is accessible to the service provider's SVP, and
wherein the user's DID wallet is configured to
obtain the service provider's SVP through recognition of the QR code.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 12 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites:
wherein the system is configured to
be applied to online payment or transaction,
wherein the user DID wallet
expresses information of a device which is interconnected with the service provider or the service provider's system,
wherein the user DID wallet
expresses a screen which is a remittance amount which can be inputted only to a deposit address based on recipient information expressed on the screen after the user's approval, and
wherein the user DID wallet is configured to
transmit to the relevant remittance address when the user remits the remittance amount.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 13 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 recites:
wherein the system is configured to
be applied to offline mutual authentication, and
wherein the user DID wallet is configured to
receive a short-range wireless signal transmitted from a service provider's system or a device interconnected with the service provider's system.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 15 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites:
wherein the user DID wallet is configured to
extract a terminal identification value from a short-range wireless signal transmitted from the service provider's system or from the device interconnected with the service provider's system, and
obtain the service provider's VP corresponding to the terminal identification value from the terminal information server by transmitting the extracted terminal identification value to the terminal information server.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 17is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 18 recites:
additionally perform a verification on whether the terminal identification value extracted from the short-range wireless signal and the terminal identification value of the service provider's system included in the service provider's VP are matched, and
allow submitting the user's VP to a submitter designated by the service provider's system or the service provider's VC only when the said verification is normally realized.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 18 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites:
be applied to online payment or transaction, and
wherein the information of the service provider is configured to
include a recipient information, a blockchain information or a public key address.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 19 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 20 recites:
express information of a device which is interconnected with the service provider or the service provider's system,
wherein the user DID wallet is configured to
express a screen which is a remittance amount that can be inputted only to a deposit address based on recipient information expressed on the screen after the user's approval, and
wherein the user DID wallet is configured to
transmit to the relevant remittance address when the user remits the remittance amount.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”).
Therefore, dependent claim 20 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 11, 14, 16 recite:
wherein the user's VP or the service provider's SVP is created from a QR code, and
wherein the QR code is configured to transmit the user's VP or the service provider's SVP.
wherein the QR code includes a return URL of the service provider when the amount of user's VP or service provider's SVP information which transmitted from the service provider's system to user DID wallet is too large to be included in a QR code, and
wherein user's VP is signed by the user in the return URL and transmitted to the service provider's system.
wherein the service provider's system or the device interconnected with the service provider's system further includes a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) beacon transmission module, and
wherein the short-range wireless signal is a BLE beacon signal.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the user VP; The user SVP; the QR code; the service provider system; the short-range wireless signal – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“verifying the identification of a user’s counterpart”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 11, 14, 16 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1, 8-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210051159 A1 Kesanupalli; Ramesh et al. UNIFIED AUTHENTICATION SYSTEM FOR DECENTRALIZED IDENTITY PLATFORMS - A unified authentication system for decentralized identity platforms is disclosed. In various embodiments, a request comprising one or more identity claims and a digital address is received. The digital address is used to verify, via a verification node associated with a digital address provider, the one or more identity claims. Access to a service is provided, in response to the request, based at least in part on a response from the verification node indicating the one or more identity claims have been verified. The verification node is configured to obtain consent, in real time, from a user with which the digital address is associated, prior to providing said response indicating the one or more identity claims have been verified.
US 20030004548 A1 Warkentin, Dwight H. Multi-site ventricular pacing system measuring QRS duration - Bi-Ventricular or AV synchronous cardiac pacing systems that pace and sense in at least one atrial heart chamber and deliver ventricular pacing pulses to right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) sites separated by a V-V delay for treatment of heart failure are disclosed that optimize one or more of the AV delay and V-V delay to enhance left ventricular filling and cardiac output as a function of QRS duration. A system and method for monitoring the QRS duration, processing such signals to provide data from which the onset or progression of heart failure is determined, and adjusting synchronous pacing delay parameters including SAV delay and/or PAV delay and/or V-V delay to enhance cardiac output as a function of QRS duration is provided. The SAV, PAV, and/or the V-V delays can be varied from the prevailing delays as a function of measured QRS duration so as to minimize the width of the QRS complex.
US 20140279541 A1 Castrechini; Marc et al. VAULT PLATFORM METHODS, APPARATUSES AND MEDIA - A payment token request may be obtained from a customer's smartphone. A payment token associated with the customer's account may be generated and sent to the customer's smartphone. A payment request including the payment token may be obtained from a consumer engagement device (CED). Payment information associated with the customer's account may be retrieved based on the payment token. Payment for the payment request may be authorized and a payment confirmation may be sent to the CED.
US 20210258350 A1 Buck; Brian James PRIVACY PRESERVATION IN NETWORK CONNECTIONS - Methods and systems provide for reducing privacy leaks in DNS request by using a private DNS service. The private DNS service provides for matching a level of privacy provided by a type of communication protocol to a level of privacy desired or required for a particular client communication. When the DNS service determines that an intended communication protocol does not supply at least the level of privacy desired for a particular communication, the private DNS service may initiate the creation of a connection with the desired level of privacy.
US 20220398299 A1 MURDOCH; Brandon et al. CROSS-SESSION ISSUANCE OF VERIFIABLE CREDENTIAL - Cross-session acquisition of a verifiable credential. The first session includes generating a user secret known to the first session and to the user, and the generation of an encrypted identity token that includes claims about authentication of the user and the user secrete. In the second session, a second computing system uses the acquired identity token to get a verifiable credential. The user is prompted to prove knowledge of the user secret within the identity token. In response to successful proof of this knowledge and validation of the identity token, the issuer system issues a verifiable credential that relies upon one or more claims that were included within the identity token, and then provides the verifiable credential to the user.
US 20230299973 A1 Luo; Zhenhui SERVICE REGISTRATION METHOD AND DEVICE - This application provides a method, including: receiving, sent by a third-party server, a registration request which includes first information, second information, and third information, the first information is used to indicate a public key address of the third-party server, the public key address includes a first domain name, the second information is used to indicate a delivery address of event information, the delivery address includes a second domain name, the third information is used to indicate a target DNS record which includes a digital signature of the third-party server; when the first domain name is the same as the second domain name, obtaining a public key of the third-party server, and obtaining the target DNS record; performing signature authentication on the digital signature based on the public key, to obtain a signature authentication result; determining, based on the signature authentication result, whether to allow the third-party server to perform registration.
US 11429958 B1 Michaelis; Oliver et al. System, method and apparatus for resource access control - A system, method and apparatus for resource access control. An authorization record is created when a requestor has been authorized to access a resource, the authorization record created from an authorization event template stored on an authorization blockchain network. The authorization resource comprises one or more conditions that must generally be true in order for the user to access the resource. The authorization record may additionally comprise one or more permissions for the user to manage the resource.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the Objections to the Drawings.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The objection is withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “n this regard, amended claim 1 clearly reflects an improvement over known technologies.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that applicant’s arguments are based on the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(a).
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Authenticating a transaction is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that pursuant to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, the amendments to Applicant's system render claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom not abstract.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not proper practice to go and find a single Court decision and use the general arguments from that decision to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter of the claimed invention in the Court decision, which in the instant situation it does not. Each application has to be considered on its own merits.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “More specifically, Applicant's system provides the mobile terminal
device in claim 1 with additional capabilities … In other words, this amendment is a "clear improvement[] to computer-related technology [that does] not need the full eligibility analysis" and such improvement would be readily apparent to an ordinary skilled artisan. Id. at 1339.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Unlike conventional systems that merely facilitate a "business transaction," the claimed system addresses a technical vulnerability (phishing and spoofing) in offline or contactless environments. This is a "technology-based solution" because it alters the standard communication protocol of the mobile terminal device to include a defensive cryptographic "handshake" that is not possible with conventional mental processes or general-purpose computers.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “However, Applicant respectfully submits that the "ordered combination" of these novel elements provides an "inventive concept" under Step 2B.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action concludes at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 1 is deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “More particularly, the previous withdrawal of the § 103 rejection confirms that the specific technical architecture-where the verifier's SVP is transmitted and verified by the user wallet first-is unconventional in the field.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the necessity of the Office to provide art in a determination that the claimed elements are not a judicial exception in a 101 analysis, is unpersuasive. Applicant suggests that novelty and/or non-obviousness must be considered in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, novelty and non-obviousness (i.e., a 102/103 prior art-type analysis) have no bearing on whether a claim recites an abstract idea, or involves conventional and routine elements. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made this clear by rejecting an argument substantially similar to applicant’s in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("We do not agree … that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete."). The prior Office action (and herein in the 101 rejection analysis, above) made a determination, for the reasons given, that the instant claims are directed as part of the “inventive concept” features/elements, which do not bring about a technological improvement to the recited elements or require the use of a special purpose computing device. Additionally, whether claimed features/elements are routine and/or conventional is just one factor in the 101 analysis and is not determinative.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “This physical/technical constraint (the quarantine distance) demonstrates that the claim is not "unambiguously abstract" but is tethered to a specific, improved technological environment.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Being “tethered to a specific, improved technological environment” is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Furthermore, the Office asserts that the claims cover "limitations expressing observation [and] evaluation in the human mind". Applicant respectfully submits that the automated verification of electronic signature values against public key addresses (as recited in claims 8 and 9) cannot be performed in the human mind.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action does not allege that claim8 and claim 9 can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights