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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 11/06/2025. Claims 1, 16, 19, 20 and 22 are presently amended. Claims 1, 4-13, and 16-24 are pending and are examined herein.
Priority
The earliest filing date is the filing date of the present application, 10/06/2022.
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, 4-13, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims recite:
- A device (claim 1, 4-13)
- A non-transitory machine-readable medium (claim 16-18)
- A method (claim 19-24)
Therefore, representative claims 1, 16, and 19 pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis for being claims to a machine, manufacture, or a method which are deemed appropriate subject matter as defined by 35 U.S.C. 101. For more guidance, please refer to MPEP 2106.
Step 2A Prong 1: The representative claims 1, 16, and 19 recite an abstract idea. Please note that the abstract idea has been bolded and the additional limitations have been italicized in order to segment the analysis.
Claim 1- A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
authenticating a first user to a network via a first communication device;
obtaining, based on the authenticating, an indication of an interaction of the first user within a virtual world of the network, wherein the interaction comprises an assertion involving the first user, the assertion comprising an indication of an identity of the first user to a second user;
identifying a context, a condition, or a combination thereof, surrounding the interaction, resulting in a first identification;
identifying, based on the first identification, a first group or a first entity for assessing the interaction, resulting in a second identification, wherein the indication of the identity is selected from a plurality of indications of a respective plurality of identities for the first user as approved by the first group or the first entity;
invoking an action based on the second identification;
presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user;
obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be;
based on the obtaining of the request and the authenticating, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, resulting in a modified badge;
presenting the modified badge to the second user; and
subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.
Claim 16 - A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
assessing a validity of a first assertion of a first user in a first virtual world of a metaverse to a second user via a first entity, the first assertion comprising an indication of an identity of the first user, wherein the indication of the identity of the first user is selected from a plurality of indications of a respective plurality of identities for the first user as approved by the first entity;
determining, subsequent to the assessing of the validity of the first assertion, that the first user has migrated from the first virtual world to a second virtual world of the metaverse, the second virtual world being different from the first virtual world;
obtaining, based on the determining, an indication of a second assertion of the first user in the second virtual world;
selecting, based on the obtaining, a second entity for assessing a validity of the second assertion, the second entity being different from the first entity;
presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user;
obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be;
based on the obtaining of the request, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, resulting in a modified badge; and
presenting the modified badge to the second user; and
subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.
Claim 19 - A method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing system including a processor, an indication of an assertion involving a first avatar of a first user, the indication of the assertion comprising a first indication of a first identity of the first user to a second user, wherein the first indication of the first identity is selected by the first avatar from a plurality of indications of a respective plurality of identities for the first user as approved by a first group or a first entity;
assessing, by the processing system and based on the obtaining, a validity of the assertion relative to a threshold;
authorizing, by the processing system and based on the assessing, a first action to be taken by the first avatar, a second action to be taken by a second avatar of a second user, or a combination thereof;
presenting, by the processing system, a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the first indication of the first identity of the first user;
obtaining, by the processing system and based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be;
based on the obtaining of the request and the authenticating, modifying, by the processing system, the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, resulting in a modified badge;
presenting, by the processing system, the modified badge to the second user; and
subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.
The aforementioned claim limitations, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, individually, or as a combination, recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices(including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) for more guidance on abstract idea groupings.
The examiner has determined that claims 1, 16, 19 recite limitations that fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subcategory of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, because the limitations in its essence recite commercial or legal interactions, and managing interactions between people. Some examples of limitations in bold that very clearly recite management of personal behavior, interactions or relationships between individuals include but are not limited to “authenticating a user,” “obtaining an indication of an interaction,” “identifying the context of the interaction,” “identifying another entity to assess the interaction,” “authorizing an action based on the identification,” “presenting a partial badge indicating the identity of a user to a second user,” “obtaining a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who... (they) claim to be,” and “modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user.” When recited as generally and broadly as it is recited, this is merely a method of managing interactions between people, allocating certain resources to perform certain tasks related to the interactions. In view of the amended claims in light of the specification, these specific tasks involve the verification of identities and allowance of permissions associated with those identities, made clear in at least [0004] and [00042]. Paragraph [00042] even states,
“Conversely, a second human may desire a greater amount of control in the virtual world and may actively use a communication device to facilitate interactions in the virtual world. For example, and in the context of the example set forth above of equipment being serviced or repaired, the second user may wish to be presented with terms of a contract or service agreement on his smartphone before agreeing to allow the avatar associated with the first human to assist with the servicing/repair operations.”
These are clearly recitations of “certain methods of organizing human activity” including the contract or service agreement and the facilitation of interactions. Another example embodiment pertinent to the amended claims is found in [00032],
“For example, upon arrival at what is notionally the second user's residence (in a physical/real-world context or in a virtual context) the first user 202a may present to the second user 204a a partial badge (e.g., a badge that includes only an employee ID number for the first user 202a). The second user 204a may provide a security code (e.g., a signature, a personal identification number [PIN], a password, or the like) that is to be associated with the first user 202a or the partial badge, as part of request on the part of the second user 204a to the first user 202a to demonstrate that the first user 202a is, in fact, who she claims to be. The first user 202a (or associated device 210a) may authenticate herself to the second ledger 240a and, based on a successful authentication, may be authorized to implement the security code as part of a modified partial badge.”
The previously amended claim elements in bold, in light of this section of the specification proves that the steps recite general methods of verifying a user through a password or badge, and then providing a modified implemented with the security code. This is more of the same abstract idea because it recites “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between individuals,” in the form of rules or instructions, as well as “commercial or legal interactions,” including contracts. Even when considering the presently amended steps of “subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user” it is clear that such steps are still part of the same abstract idea because they are merely providing another “modified badge” with an indication of a second identity of a user, which is one of the identities included in the plurality of identities for a first user. These limitations are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification particularly “[00030] The badge 206a (or the associated data/information) may be one of a plurality/multiple of badges within the first ledger 220a that the first user 202a may choose/select from. In this manner, the first user 202a may be able to change the characteristics associated with the identity that she would like to portray for herself to suit her preferences or role for the day, simply by choosing a given badge (or associated data/information) from the multiple of different badges that are available to her.” Therefore, the claims merely are an act of presenting an alternative identity of the user, so for example, providing one’s alias or nickname, would fall within these bounds of this limitation. Providing an alternative identity is still a means of “managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between individuals” because the claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they encompass mere rules or instructions for an individual to follow. In this case, the steps of “subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user,” are recited so broadly that they are merely reciting an order in which users are to perform their interactions, or are rules constraining how users are supposed to perform these interactions. Therefore, even when considering the claims as a whole in view of the specification, the claims in bold clearly recite abstract idea steps under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” whether it be “commercial or legal interactions” or “managing personal behavior.”
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and are to be further analyzed under step 2a Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: The abstract ideas of claims 1, 16, and 19 have not been found to be integrated into a practical application, because the additional limitations have not been found to promote the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations are as follows:
-A device(claim 1)
-A processing system(claim 1, 16, 19)
-A memory that stores executable instructions(claim 1)
-a network(claim 1)
-a first communication device(claim 1)
-a virtual world(claim 1, 16)
-A non-transitory machine-readable medium(claim 16)
-a processor(claim 16, 19)
-a metaverse(claim 16)
When stated with such generality the preceding additional limitations amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f) for additional guidance on “mere instructions to apply an exception.” As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’", which has not been done in these claims, which apply generic computing components to the legal interactions of verifying the identity to allow access to an asset.
More specifically, the claims merely recite abstract idea steps such as “authenticating a user,” “obtaining an indication of an interaction,” “identifying the context of the interaction,” “identifying another entity to assess the interaction,” “authorizing an action based on the identification,” “presenting a partial badge indicating the identity of a user to a second user,” “obtaining a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who... (they) claim to be,” and “modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user” which are then limited to being performed on a generic computer or generic computing components such as a device, a processing system, a memory that stores executable instructions, a network, a first communication device, virtual(ly), non-transitory machine-readable medium, and a processor. These devices are merely added after the fact, to the abstract idea to the point that they are “mere instructions to apply an exception” to a computer.
Furthermore, the preceding additional limitations have been found to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h). For example, the claims generally link the use of the abstract idea to the virtual worlds, and a metaverse.
As such, in view of paragraph [0045] of the specification, the examiner does not find the additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims as stated are not found to include limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application including:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
None of these examples apply to the present claims because there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, improvement to technology or technical field. The claims merely recite an abstract idea that is integrated to a computer system, without an specific improved computing infrastructure recited. Any alleged improvement is merely an improvement to the abstract idea inherent to merely applying it to a computer or generally linking it to virtual and metaverse environments. The examiner notes that for an improvement to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the improvement must be to the additional elements such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to other technology, or technical field. The applicant has not presented an improvement to any of the above. Furthermore, since the claims are primarily reciting an abstract idea while merely applying it to generic computers, it is not an example of implementing a judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Furthermore, since the claims are merely applying or using the abstract idea and generally linking it to the virtual or metaverse environments, it is not limited in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. If the claims as a whole in their current state were granted, general authentication/verification/credentialing steps would be monopolized in the technological environment of metaverse applications. For clarity of the record, the examiner has not made an assertion that the additional elements are “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” therefore, this rejection does not rely upon such an assertion. Therefore, even when considering the claims individually or as an ordered combination, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, nothing in the claims, even when viewing the claims as a whole provides additional elements that integrate the abstract into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The aforementioned additional elements fail to promote the abstract idea into significantly more, in order for it to amount to an inventive concept for the same reasons above. Those additional elements are repeated for emphasis:
-A device(claim 1)
-A processing system(claim 1, 16, 19)
-A memory that stores executable instructions(claim 1)
-a network(claim 1)
-a first communication device(claim 1)
-a virtual world(claim 1, 16)
-A non-transitory machine-readable medium(claim 16)
-a processor(claim 16, 19)
-a metaverse(claim 16)
Particularly, the claims merely apply the abstract idea to be performed on generic computing devices(MPEP 2106.05(f), or are a general link to a particular technological environment(MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional element of using generic computing devices such as device, a processing system, a memory that stores executable instructions, a network, a first communication device, virtual(ly), non-transitory machine-readable medium, and a processor to perform the abstract idea steps of “authenticating a user,” “obtaining an indication of an interaction,” “identifying the context of the interaction,” “identifying another entity to assess the interaction,” “authorizing an action based on the identification,” “presenting a partial badge indicating the identity of a user to a second user,” “obtaining a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who... (they) claim to be,” and “modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user” amounts to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Furthermore, generally linking interactions, security steps, and personal behavior to the technological environment of a “metaverse” does not meaningfully limit its use on the claims.
Finally, as indicated in the Prong 2 section and reemphasized, no improvement to a technological environment, functioning of computer, or technical field has been shown. Alleged improvements in this claim are merely improvements to the abstract idea, inherent to the abstract idea being performed on a computer, which does not count as an improvement to the additional elements. Therefore, whether considering the additional elements individually or the claims as a whole, the claims do not provide significantly more. Because the claims are merely directed to an abstract idea and the claims as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Furthermore, after giving dependent claims 4-13, 17-18, and 20-24 the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations of dependent claims still being examined both individually and in combination, it has been found that the dependent claims are also patent ineligible under 101.
The additional recited limitations in claims 4 – 12, 17, 18, 20, and 22 of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea, which means they still recite to the same abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial or legal interactions. For example, claim 4 further narrows the “interaction”, claim 5 further narrows the first user and the presentation, and so on. Likewise, the remaining dependent claims further narrow an element. Furthermore, claims 4 – 12, 17, 18, 20, and 22 do not provide further additional elements other than those already considered above to be no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer(MPEP 2106.05(f), or general links to blockchain and metaverse technological environments(MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, claims 4 – 12, 17, 18, 20, and 22 are also directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 13 further defines the abstract idea by adding further operations mapping the interaction data to a first block in a blockchain and selecting such a block. This is generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment and field of use of “blockchain.” The steps of mapping data to a block is a general link because it involves using blockchain as merely the platform to store the data. Therefore, claim 13 is also directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 21 and 23 also further narrow the abstract idea by limiting the “action” to include the “presentation of an advertisement” in relation to the social media platforms(claim 21), and limiting the “first user” to be an employee of a group, and the “assessing” to be done on artificial intelligence (claim 23). These additional limitations further narrow the scope of the same abstract idea of “authenticating a user, obtaining an indication of an interaction, identifying the context of the interaction, identifying another entity to assess the interaction, and performing an action based on the identification.” Furthermore, “social media platforms” and “artificial intelligence” are additional elements that are general links to particular technological environments or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims do not meaningfully limit the use of the social media platforms or artificial intelligence on the scope of the claims and do not provide an improvement to either field as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, claims 21 and 23 are also directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 24 further limits the abstract idea by specifying the steps to occur when the first user arrives at a residence of a second user, including limiting the identification of the identity to “an employee ID” number. This is more of the same abstract idea because it merely represents the format of data or merely indicates the intended use and location of performing the abstract idea. The additional element of the residence being in the “first virtual world,” is still an example of generally linking the abstract idea to a particularly technological environment of the metaverse. Therefore, even when considering these claims in combination with the claims depended upon as a whole, including analyzing all the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, Claim 24 is also patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 4-13, 16-19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al. (US 20240022561 A1) hereinafter Ingram in view of Wentz et al. (US 20220123948 A1) hereinafter referred to as Wentz, further in view of Sal Khan (US 11139976 B2) hereinafter Khan, further in view of Astarabadi et al. (US 20210314526 A1) hereinafter Astarabadi.
- Regarding Claim 1:
Ingram discloses A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations,(Ingram[0013])
which teaches the operations comprising:
-authenticating a first user to a network via a first communication device; (Ingram [0014] For example, user information collected from the user and/or assigned to the user in a real-world environment may be used in a virtual environment 102 (e.g., metaverse environment) to authenticate the first user 110 before allowing the first user 110 to access the virtual environment 102 and perform any kind of action or interaction within the virtual environment 102.)
-obtaining, based on the authenticating, an indication of an interaction of the first user within a virtual world of the network; (Ingram [0017] While engaging in the virtual environment 102 via the first avatar 114, the first user 110 may interact with a plurality of other users, objects and/or entities (e.g., virtual sub-environment 120) through a respective avatar. For example, the second user 112 may attempt to engage in an interaction session with the first avatar 114 through a second avatar 116 associated with the second user 112. In another example, the first avatar 114 of the first user 110 may access a virtual sub-environment 120 within the virtual environment 102 and perform virtual data interactions within the virtual sub-environment 120. [0044] In one or more embodiments, the virtual data file (e.g. virtual data file 160) is a software application running on a computing node owned and/or operated by the respective user (e.g., first user 110). For example, when the first user 110 desires to receive virtual data objects 162 from a virtual data file of the second user 112, first user 110 may direct the second user 112 to a unique cryptographic address (e.g., public key) issued by the virtual data file 160.)
-wherein the interaction comprises an indication of an identity of the first user to a second user; (Ingram [0045] In one or more embodiments, virtual-world server 150 may be configured to record virtual-world data interactions performed by the first user 110 in the virtual environment 102. The recorded virtual-world data interactions may be stored as part of virtual-world data interaction history 164 of the first user 110. Each virtual-world data interaction record stored in the virtual-world data interaction history 164 may relate to a distinct virtual-world data interaction performed by the first user 110 and may include information relating to the virtual-world data interaction including, but not limited to, and an identity of an entity or user (e.g., second user 112) with which the data interaction was performed. In one embodiment, the virtual-world data interaction history 164 may be stored as part of the user data 132 in the real-world server 130.)
-identifying a context, a condition, or a combination thereof, surrounding the interaction, resulting in a first identification; (Ingram [0045] In one or more embodiments, virtual-world server 150 may be configured to record virtual-world data interactions performed by the first user 110 in the virtual environment 102. The recorded virtual-world data interactions may be stored as part of virtual-world data interaction history 164 of the first user 110. Each virtual-world data interaction record stored in the virtual-world data interaction history 164 may relate to a distinct virtual-world data interaction performed by the first user 110 and may include information relating to the virtual-world data interaction including, but not limited to, a type of the data interaction (e.g., sending virtual data objects 162, receiving virtual data objects 162, updating user data 132 etc.), a date and time the data interaction was performed, an identity of a sending data file (e.g., virtual data file 160), an identity of a receiving data file (e.g., virtual data file 160), an amount of virtual data objects 162 transferred (e.g., sent or received)...)
-identifying, based on the first identification, a first group or a first entity for assessing the interaction, resulting in a second identification; (Ingram [0053] Virtual-world server 150 may be configured to generate a virtual security token 154, as explained in detail below, that provides the first user 110 access to the virtual sub-environment 120 within the virtual environment 102. The virtual security token 154 generated for the first user 110 may be stored in the virtual data file 160 of the first user 110. In one embodiment, the virtual security token 154 may additionally authorize the first user 110 to perform one or more virtual data interactions within the virtual sub-environment 120. The virtual security token 154 may represent a virtual user credential that may include, but is not limited to, an encrypted keycard, a virtual token, a virtual tag or a virtual halo. In one embodiment, the virtual security token 154 includes an encrypted data file that can store information. The first user 110 may first enter the virtual environment 102 (e.g., via first avatar 114) using the user credential 152 and then access the virtual sub-environment 120 using the virtual security token 154.) The virtual world server is the entity assessing the interaction of the first user attempting to enter a virtual sub-environment. The second identification is the virtual security token which allows the user to enter the sub-environment.
-wherein the indication of the identity is selected from a plurality of indications of a respective plurality of identities for the first user as approved by the first group or the first entity; (Ingram [0041] [0041] The first user 110 may additionally register with the virtual-world server 150. In one embodiment, when initially registering with the virtual-world server 150, the first user 110 may provide to the virtual-world server 150 a credential (e.g., username and password) that provides the first user 110 access to the real-world server 130. In one embodiment, a single web page or web portal may allow the first user 110 to register with the real-world server 130 as well as the virtual-world server 150. The first user 110 may first register with the real-world server 130 as described above and generate credentials that allow the first user 110 access to the real-world server 130 and services provided by the real-world server 130. [0050] In one or more embodiments, virtual-world server 150 may be configured to use a user credential 152 collected from the first user 110, generated by the first user 110 or assigned to the first user 110 during real-world data interactions with the first user 110, to verify identity of the first user 110 in the virtual environment 102. Thus, the user credential 152 provides the first user 110 access to the virtual environment 102. For example, the user credential 152 may be used by the virtual-world server 150 to verify that the first avatar 114 belongs to and is controlled by the first user 110. [0071] When the two retina scans match, virtual-world server 150 determines that the first avatar 114 is associated with the first user 110 and may authorize and allow the first avatar 114 to enter the virtual environment 102.) This limitation in view of specification paragraphs [0027-0030] is interpreted to cover the scope of any indication of identities that is matched with a list of approved identities, for example, checking the name, avatar style or image and matching it with a plurality of approved identities. Multiple excerpts in Ingram teach such a feature.
-and invoking an action based on the second identification. (Ingram [0053] Once the first avatar 114 of the first user 110 has accessed the virtual sub-environment 120, first user 110 may receive one or more services provided within the virtual sub-environment 120 and/or perform one or more virtual data interactions in the virtual sub-environment 120.)
However, Ingram fails to teach:
-wherein the interaction comprises an assertion involving the first user,
-presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user;
-obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be;
-based on the obtaining of the request and the authenticating, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, resulting in a modified badge; and
-presenting the modified badge to the second user.
- subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.
Alternatively, Wentz discloses a system for authenticating a requesting device using verified evaluators using an authenticating device to receive digitally signed assertions. Wentz discloses:
- wherein the interaction comprises an assertion involving the first user, the assertion comprising an indication of an identity of the first user; (Wentz [0033] Referring now to FIG. 2, system 100 may be used to perform one or more processing steps necessary to create, maintain, and/or authenticate a digitally signed assertion 116. In one embodiment, at least a digitally signed assertion 116 is a collection of textual data signed using a digital signature as described above... For instance, at least a digitally signed assertion 116 may describe a transfer of virtual currency, such as crypto currency as described below. The virtual currency may be a digital currency. Item of value may be a transfer of trust, for instance represented by a statement vouching for the identity or trustworthiness of the first entity. [0145] Still referring to FIG. 5, credential may include at least an authorization datum. As used herein, an authorization datum is a datum granting one or more rights that may be requested in an authorization request as described above. For instance, and without limitation, an authorization datum may include a digital certificate as described above; digital certificate may, for instance and without limitation, associate an identity of a user or entity operating requesting device 140 with an identifier of remote device, confer upon remote device access rights to one or more resources incorporated in or connected to system 100, associate requesting device 140 with a given confidence level, grant a transfer of assets, data, and/or access rights from one device to another, or the like.)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ingram by adding digital signed assertions confirming the identity of a user as suggested by Wentz. This would result in the expected outcome of each of Ingram’s interactions being validated by assertions signed by verified evaluators. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the combination as it would provide the benefit of efficiently increasing the security of a system by using selected evaluators to validate the digitally signed assertions, which provides the best security and efficiency trade off. (Wentz [0015])
However, Ingram in view of Wentz still fails to teach or suggest:
-presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user;
-obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be;
-based on the obtaining of the request and the authenticating, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, resulting in a modified badge; and
-presenting the modified badge to the second user.
- subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.
Alternatively, Khan discloses a platform built on blockchain/distributed ledger technology enabling requestors to verify the identity presenter both in the real world and virtual world. Khan teaches:
-presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user; (Khan[Col. 18 Lines 19-23] As such the OED may display to the officer associated with the OED, as indicated by OED in second OED configuration 520B, wherein the privacy compliant representation 550 and unique identifier 540 are displayed. [Col. 18 Lines 43-50] Optionally, the EleID and/or a representation of the PhysID may be modified, i.e. redacted, in order to meet the appropriate privacy requirements which may be determined in dependence upon ... the requesting third party, the jurisdiction of issuance of the EleID/PhysID, the jurisdiction of the third party requesting verification, and an activity associated with the verification process. [Col. 18 Line 57- Col. 19 Line 4] Subsequently, for example in respect of an encounter with law enforcement, they receive a request upon their PED in respect to verifying their PhotoID... ) The requesting party is the “second user.” The “privacy compliant representation and unique identifier” which is a “redacted” version of the PhysID, is mapped to the partial badge.
-obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be; (Khan [Col. 18 Line 57- Col. 19 Line 4] ...The request having been issued by the law enforcement officer, in this example “OPP #7352”, based upon a request issued from a PED as depicted in third image 600C associated with the law enforcement officer which is routed to PHYSAP 155N and therein triggers provisioning of the request to the user's PED. The triggering request depicted in second image 600B wherein the user enters their user identity and password in respect of the request which is then communicated to the PHYSAPP 155N wherein the user's and officer's PEDs receive data relating to the user's driving license as depicted in fourth and fifth images 600D and 600E respectively.))
-based on the obtaining of the request and the authenticating, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, (Khan [Col. 18 Lines 11-42] As such the OED may display to the officer associated with the OED, as indicated by OED in second OED configuration 520B, wherein the privacy compliant representation 550 and unique identifier 540 are displayed. The officer associated with the OED can then compare these to the PhysID and/or EleID being offered by the user. In the instance of an EleID... the EIeID 530 together with a second unique identifier 535 provided to them within third response “7.” As such the EleIDAp in execution upon the user's PED provides information against which the officer with the information upon their OED can compare. As such the officer would be seeking to verify that the EleIDs match and the unique identifiers match. Optionally, as indicated within third OED configuration 520C the IA 510 may have communicated a second fractal 545 to the OED within second response “6.” This second fractal 545 may for example be a fractal associated with the PhysID and/or EIeID and bound to it at issuance (optionally this is also part of the PhysID and/or EleID. Optionally, the fractal, representation of PhysID and/or EIeID, and unique identifier may be provided upon the OED. [Col. 22 Lines 55-59] Unique identifier, eg. Text, image, fractal...) In the excerpt above, the process describes an officer checking a privacy compliant representation, such as PhysID, or EleID, these are examples of “partial badges” which have some but not all of the identifying information. The BRI of “badge” is an identification card in view of at least [00032] of the present specification. “Fractal” or “unique identifier” are examples of security codes, therefore a fractal “bound” to the PhysID is an example of a modified badge implemented with the security code. See Khan Fig. 6, 600A, and 600C for examples of partial badges, which include partial identifying information, and 600B, 600D, and 600E for the modified badge, especially 600B which includes the implemented security code(password Z5674A).
- resulting in a modified badge; and(Khan [Col. 8 Line 41- Col. 9 Line 3] Accordingly, a credential holder (user 165) is identity-proofed in-person by a trusted agent of the government photographic identity issuing authority, e.g. first and second PHYSAPs 155A and 155B. This process step 210, as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A, results in the issuance of photographic identity (Photo-ID) document (PhysID) 160A (step 220) and the credential holder's proofed identity being bound (step 230) to the government photographic identity document... In contrast, with second PHYSAP 155B, a similar process as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A may be employed, resulting in a second PhysID 160D, electronic ID document (EleID) 160B, and fractal 160C. The fractal 160C may, for example be a fractal image or be a fractal image with embedded encrypted data such as described by the inventors within U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/086,745 entitled “Verifiable Credentials and Methods Thereof” filed Dec. 3, 2014... [Col. 11 Line 49-54] Accordingly, the Token Management Service 110 comprises a Token Manager 115 that binds, denoted by Binding 120, the digital security certificates 125 to the user's 160 PEDs/FEDs such as depicted by first to third devices 130A to 130C respectively. [Col. 19 Lines 13-21]) Binding the user’s identity to permanently include the valid security codes is an example of “resulting in a modified badge,” which gives user’s higher trust levels of access.
-presenting the modified badge to the second user. (Khan [Col. 18 Lines 37-42] This second fractal 545 may for example be a fractal associated with the PhysID and/or EIeID and bound to it at issuance (optionally this is also part of the PhysID and/or EleID. Optionally, the fractal, representation of PhysID and/or EIeID, and unique identifier may be provided upon the OED. [Col. 17 Lines 36-39] This fractal 515 is then acquired by an official electronic device (OED) displayed in first OED configuration 520A. As displayed the OED is associated with the Iowa City Police Department.) Presenting the bound fractal to the OED of the police department is an example of presenting the modified badge to the second user.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ingram by adding the teachings of Khan, specifically, the steps of presenting an obscured badge, receiving an authentication code, binding the badge with a security code to generate and present a modified badge that has the combined credentials. This combination would yield the predictable outcome of implementing Khan’s security system as is, into Ingram’s virtual environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine as it would provide the benefit of utilizing blockchain technology to increase security without compromising on privacy. (Khan [Abstract] Identity information stored securely on a mobile device and information usable by the requestor to verify the identity and the identity presenter are delivered at the request of the identity owner. The patent claims describe the use, sharing and verification of personal and financial identity data with the identity owner's permission. The Identity owner retain complete control over distribution of their information.)
However, neither Ingram, Wentz, Khan, nor teach or suggest:
- subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.(This limitation is interpreted in view of paragraphs [0030]-[0032] of the instant specification, which the scope includes “the first user 202a may be able to change the characteristics associated with the identity that she would like to portray for herself to suit her preferences or role for the day, simply by choosing a given badge (or associated data/information) from the multiple of different badges that are available to her.”) However, neither Ingram, Wentz, nor Khan teach or suggest the availability for an individual to change their characteristics after the presenting of the modified badge to the second user.
Alternatively, Astarabadi discloses a system for meeting in a synthetic video conference feed, biometrically verifying the identity of a user, and rendering a synthetic virtual image in place of the frame of the user. Astarabadi suggests: - subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, (Astarabadi [0142] Furthermore, the second device can communicate verification status—of the first user—to the second user, as shown in FIG. 1C. [0143]... the second device can indicate that the first user's identity is verified, such as by rendering: a virtual “green” verification icon near the synthetic face image feed displayed on the second device; a textual notification that the first user is currently verified (e.g., “John G. identified”); or render a “verified” watermark over the synthetic face image feed. [0145] the second device can present a message or otherwise indicate that the first synthetic face image feed depicts an authentic representation of a past or modified physiognomy of the first user [0018] to verify the identity of a first user (e.g., based on her facial characteristics); to enable the first user to select a particular look model (or “avatar,” “skin”) for this video call only after verifying her identity; and to selectively enable the second device to access this particular look model; and vice versa for the second user.) In Khan, the step of presenting the fractal bound to the PhysId/EleID is mapped to “presenting the modified badge to the second user.” In Khan, such a step represents the verification of the identity to a second user. Similarly, in Astarabadi [0142-0145], the second user is presented with a verification of the first user such as a watermark, or a message that the synthetic face image is an authentic representation of a modified physiognomy. Either of these examples above, fall within the scope of a “modified badge.” The second presentation of “another modified badge” occurs after the verification, in which the user is displayed as a skin, which falls within the scope of “another modified badge” in view of present specification [0031] “various characteristics a user would like to portray themself for the day.” Therefore, Astarabadi’s “particular look model (or avatar, skin) satisfies the “another modified badge” limitation.
- wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and (Astarabadi [0145] Similarly, if the first look model does represent an authentic physiognomy of the first user generated at a different time, the second device can present a message or otherwise indicate that the first synthetic face image feed depicts an authentic representation of a past or modified physiognomy of the first user. Similarly, if the first look model does represent an authentic physiognomy of the first user generated just before or during the video call, the second device can present a message or otherwise indicate that the first synthetic face image feed depicts an authentic representation of the user's physiognomy at the current time. [0030] Furthermore, the first device (and/or the remote computer system) can verify the identity of the first and second users before enabling the first user to access unique avatars or “skins” associated with her accounts; and the second device can reconstruct a video feed captured at the first device—but depicting the first user according to her selected avatar or “skin,” which may differ from the first user's true appearance—only when the identity of the first user is verified.) Astarabadi [0030], “which may differ from the first user’s true appearance” satisfies the limitation of “different from the indication of the identity of the first user.” Astarabadi [0145] teaches the second identity including second content (the modified physiogmy of the first user (avatar skin)).
- wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.(Astarabadi [0083] The user's device (and/or the remote computer system) can also interface with the user to generate a (unique) skin model (or “avatar”) that contains a set of coefficients and is configured to generate a synthetic face image representing an authentic physiognomy—different from the user—when inserted into the synthetic face generator with a facial landmark container extracted from an image of the user's face. More specifically, the device can interface with the user to generate a custom skin model in a format similar to the user's face or look model but that produces synthetic face images that differ—subtly (e.g., a change in eye and skin color) or significantly (e.g., different gender and facial structure)—from the user's true physiognomy. [105] 7.2 Face/Look Model Selection [0106] Upon confirming this correspondence, the first device can prompt the user to select from a set of available look models—stored in the user's account or otherwise associated with the user—for the upcoming video call. [0156] In one variation shown in FIG. 7, the remote computer system (or the first device) stores encrypted look models for users.) Therefore, these alternative skin models, which the user has generated, are chosen from a list of available look models. This satisfies the limitation above, because the selected skin is selected from the plurality of available look models stored in the user account (first user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to further modify the combination of Ingram, Wentz, and Khan with the teachings of Astarabadi, specifically, the ability for a user to present another modified badge (or identity/appearance) to a second user out of a list of available identities for the first user. By simply substituting these steps at the end of Khan’s presentation of a modified badge, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the combination to yield the predictable outcome of presenting another modified badge to a second user, subsequent to the presentation of the modified badge, wherein the modified badge includes content, including an indication of a second identity that is different from the first identity, which has been selected from a plurality of identities for the first user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of obscuring the user’s identity from another attendee whilst preventing impersonation of the first user. Another benefit of the system that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the systems is reduction in latency and packet loss between the transmission of data, whilst maintaining the realism and authenticity of the first user’s facial expressions. (Astarabadi [0089] Therefore, this new skin model may not depict a current or past physiognomy of the user but rather an authentic-looking, purely-synthetic, AI-generated representation of a human face. The user may then elect this skin model during a subsequent video call, such as to obscure the user's identity from another attendee on the video call. [0030] More specifically, because a look model in the first user's account may represent a model for transforming a facial landmark container into an authentic representation of the first user's face, someone other than the first user may impersonate the first user by feeding facial landmark containers and the look model into the synthetic face generator. [0024] Accordingly, this stream of facial landmark containers may not (or may very rarely) approach throughput limitations of these networks, thereby enabling these networks to transmit this lightweight stream of facial landmark containers from the first device to the second device with low latency, low packet loss, and high consistency despite changes in traffic between other devices connected to these networks and even during periods of high traffic on these networks. [0029] Therefore, though the first device streams a feed of facial landmark containers to the second device rather than a live video feed of photographic video frames, the second device can leverage the look model of the first user and the synthetic face image to generate a photorealistic feed of synthetic images that both: appear to the second user as the first user; and authentically reproduce the first user's facial expression, mouth shape, and a position relative to the first device.)
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 1.
Furthermore, Ingram teaches
-wherein the interaction comprises a presentation of the indication of the identity of the first user to a second user. (Ingram [0039] Once registered with the real-world server 130, the real-world server 130 may allow the first user 110 to perform one or more data interactions in the real-world environment. It may be noted that a data interaction in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure refers to any interaction in the real-world environment and/or virtual environment 102 that includes transfer of data between computing nodes (e.g., first user device 104, second user device 106, real-world server 130 and virtual-world server 150)... [0040] Each data interaction record stored in the real-world data interaction history includes an identity of an entity or user (e.g., second user 112) with which the data interaction was performed.)
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 4.
Furthermore, Ingram teaches:
-wherein the first user is associated with a first avatar in the virtual world, and wherein the presentation of the indication of the identity of the first user to the second user comprises the first avatar presenting the indication of the identity.(Ingram [0018] Before the interaction between the first avatar 114 and the second avatar 116 occurs or the first avatar 114 can access the virtual sub-environment 120, the virtual-world server 150 may authenticate that the first avatar 114 is associated with the first user 110 and not an unauthorized third-party. For example, the first user 110 may be required to sign into a secure portal that provides access to a data file (e.g., real-world data file 134 and/or virtual data file 160) associated with the first user 110. As shown in FIG. 1, the real-world data file 134 of the first user 110 is stored and managed by the real-world server 130 and the virtual data file 160 is stored and managed by the virtual-world server 150. In one or more embodiments, the virtual-world server 150 may employ single sign-on (SSO), multifactor authentication, or any other suitable authentication scheme in order to allow the first user 110 access to the virtual data file 160 and/or the real-world data file 134. The virtual data file 160 and the real-world data file 134 may include virtual data objects 162 and real-world data objects 136 respectively owned by the first user 110. The real-world server 130 and the virtual-world server 150 may store other information related to the first user 110 including, but not limited to, user profile information, account information (e.g., including identity and other details relating to the respective data files 134 and 160), avatar information, digital assets (e.g., respective real-world data objects 136 and virtual data objects 162) information, or any other suitable type of information that is associated with a user within the virtual environment 102 and/or the real-world environment.)
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 1.
Furthermore, Wentz teaches:
-wherein the assertion comprises an identification of a task that is to be performed by the first user.(Wentz [0142] Referring now to FIG. 5, an exemplary embodiment of a method 500 of authenticating a requesting device using verified evaluators is illustrated. At step 505, an authenticating device 104 receives at least first digitally signed assertion from a requesting device 140. Requesting device 140 may include any requesting device 140 as described above; in an embodiment, requesting device 140 is a device seeking authorization from authenticating device 104 to perform an action. Action may include obtaining access rights to an element of data, a data structure, a device, a platform, and/or a program. Action may include performance of a program or application and/or participation in a program or application;) Wherein Wentz’s authentication device is the recipient of the assertion, and “seeking authorization to perform an action” is the identified task that the authentication device(which represents the first user) is to perform.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ingram in view of Wentz to include an assertion identifying a task that the first user has to perform, as it provides the benefit of creating a more secure system. Implementing a system where users must request authorization as opposed to authorization being granted to them, ensures more security for the requesting device.(Wentz [0145])
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 1.
Furthermore, Wentz teaches:
- wherein the assessing of the interaction comprises an assessment of a validity of the assertion.(Wentz [0045] The validity of each assertion may be attested to by an entity having an accepted authority to indicate possession of security and/or price; for instance, and without limitation, a digitally signed assertion may be created by an entity issuing the security, such as a corporate entity issuing an equity or debt security to a purchaser, wherein digitally signed assertion is signed by a device that may be demonstrated as possessed by the entity issuing the security. In further example, a digitally signed assertion may be created by an entity such as a custodial agent, securities clearing house or depository trust.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to implement assessing the validity of the assertion as the performance of such task would be beneficial in the non-limiting example of banking systems where each claim/assertion to a financial product must be thoroughly verified by an authority or else there will be financial consequences.(Wentz 0045)
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 7.
Furthermore, Wentz teaches:
- wherein the invoking of the action is based on a level of the validity of the assertion.(Wentz[0035] Authenticating device 104 may be designed and configured to receive at least a first digitally signed assertion 116, assign at least a confidence level to the at least a cryptographic evaluator 112, provide the at least a digitally signed assertion 116 to the cryptographic evaluator, receive, from the at least a cryptographic evaluator 112, at least an appraisal of the at least a first digitally signed assertion 116, and authenticate the at least a first digitally signed assertion 116 as a function of the at least an appraisal and the at least a confidence level.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to include a level of validity as certain systems would have varying needs for security which cannot be universally associated with a single standard for verification. (Wentz 0030)
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 8.
Furthermore, Wentz teaches:
- wherein the invoking of the action comprises invoking a first action when the level of the validity of the assertion is a first level, (Wentz[0109] Still viewing FIG. 4, selection may include selection of only highly trusted cryptographic evaluators 112, for instance as determined by determination of confidence levels as described below, such that the fewest cryptographic evaluators 112 are required for a given security requirement. These methods may be used to optimize network performance of authentication processes. In another example, additional data as described above that are incorporated into blocks or otherwise made available to nodes of the network may be utilized to optimally select which cryptographic evaluators 112 are selected. Selection of at least a cryptographic evaluator 112 may include selection to minimize total communication latency, where total communication latency is total expected time for each cryptographic evaluator 112 to respond with an appraisal as described in further detail below; such selection may involve determining, for instance, a selection of plurality of cryptographic evaluators 112 presenting an optimal or near-optimal network traversal time, which may be computed using node-count distances, geographical distances, network communication latency times, and/or expected performance times by particular cryptographic evaluators 112. Such optimization may involve a near-optimal resolution of a “traveling salesman” problem, including without limitation a “greedy algorithm” in which each selection step involves choosing a locally optimal cryptographic evaluator 112; for instance, authenticating device 104 may choose a first “nearest” cryptographic evaluator 112 as measured by any of the above metrics, including any measure of actual or path distance and/or any measure of communication or computation latency.)
- wherein the invoking of the action comprises invoking a second action when the level of the validity of the assertion is a second level that is different from the first level, (Wentz [109] Continuing the example, authenticating device 104 may subsequently select a second cryptographic evaluator according to a locally optimal next selection under the above-described metric or metrics, selecting from locally optimal steps that either first cryptographic evaluator 112, authenticating device 104, either, or both may perform.)
- and wherein the second action is different from the first action. (Wentz[109] or the solution to another optimization problem such as optimization of confidence versus speed...)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to include a second evaluation of the validity with a different confidence level using a different technique, as doing so would ensure the robustness of the validity of the assertion, avoiding risks of falsely validating an assertion due to the assertion overfitting with a particular confidence assessment technique.(Wentz [0109])
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 8.
Furthermore, Wentz teaches:
- wherein the invoking of the action comprises granting the first user with access to a resource when the level of the validity of the assertion is greater than a threshold.(Wentz [0145] Still referring to FIG. 5, credential may include at least an authorization datum. As used herein, an authorization datum is a datum granting one or more rights that may be requested in an authorization request as described above. For instance, and without limitation, an authorization datum may include a digital certificate as described above; digital certificate may, for instance and without limitation, associate an identity of a user or entity operating requesting device 140 with an identifier of remote device, confer upon remote device access rights to one or more resources incorporated in or connected to system 100, associate requesting device 140 with a given confidence level, grant a transfer of assets, data, and/or access rights from one device to another, or the like…[0148] Authenticating device 104 may validate the credential as a function of the confidence level; for instance, and as described in further detail above in reference to FIGS. 1-4, authenticating device 104 may compare a confidence level in and/or associated with credential to a threshold. Authenticating device may, in a non-limiting example, determine an aggregate confidence level in the plurality of cryptographic evaluators, such as a plurality of cryptographic evaluators signing credential as described above, compare the aggregate confidence level to a validation threshold, and validate the credential as a function of the determination; this may be performed, without limitation, as described above in reference to FIGS. 1-4. Authenticating device 104 may alternatively or additionally determine that credential is not valid, where credential fails one or more tests, comparisons, or the like as described in this disclosure for validating credential; for instance, where a confidence level as described above does not meet a threshold, authenticating device 104 may determine that credential is not valid, and deny requesting device 140 ability to perform a requested action as described above.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to authorize the access to a resource only at a given threshold of validity as doing so would ensure security of data, given that the confidence threshold would vary depending on the likelihood that the associated device is tied to the identity of the user. (Wentz[0145-0148])
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 1.
Additionally, Ingram teaches wherein the first identification comprises an identification of:
- a nature or a subject matter of the assertion, (Ingram [0045] a type of the data interaction (e.g., sending virtual data objects 162, receiving virtual data objects 162, updating user data 132 etc.)
- a location in the virtual world where the assertion is raised, (Ingram[0016] An avatar is a graphical representation of a user at a virtual location within the virtual environment 102. In embodiments, the virtual location of the avatar may be correlated to the physical location of a user in the real-world environment…[0059] In one or more embodiments, virtual-world server 150 may maintain one or more conditions 156 for accessing the virtual sub-environment 120. These conditions 156 may be based on one or more attributes related to the first user 110, the attributes including, but not limited to, a time the first user 110 requested access to the virtual sub-environment 120, a location of the first user 110 in the real-world environment when requesting access to the virtual sub-environment 120,)
- a time when the assertion is raised, (Ingram[0045] a date and time the data interaction was performed…[0059 a time the first user 110 requested access to the virtual subenvironment)
- a second user that the assertion is raised to (Ingram[0045] and an identity of an entity or user (e.g., second user 112) with which the data interaction was performed. )
However, Ingram fails to teach:
- a reason or a purpose for why the assertion is raised,
- a technique that is utilized to raise the assertion, or any combination thereof.
Alternatively, Wentz teaches:
- a reason or a purpose for why the assertion is raised, (Wentz [0041] In some embodiments, one or more addresses incorporated in the multi-signature at least a digitally signed assertion 116 are typical crypto-currency addresses, such as addresses linked to public keys as described above, while one or more additional addresses in the multi-signature at least a digitally signed assertion 116 contain additional data related to the at least a digitally signed assertion 116; for instance, the additional data may indicate the purpose of the at least a digitally signed assertion 116, aside from an exchange of virtual currency, such as the item for which the virtual currency was exchanged.)
- a technique that is utilized to raise the assertion, or any combination thereof. (Wentz [0125] Still referring to FIG. 4, authenticating device 104 may determine a confidence level in identity of at least a cryptographic evaluator 112. Confidence level in identity may be computed, for instance, using one or more statistical measures of reliability of the identification method used; for instance, a user may enter an instruction on authenticating device 104 providing statistics indicating success rates of various identification methods. Statistics may be collected based, as a non-limiting example, on discoveries of vulnerabilities in particular identification protocols and/or particular instances of secure computation module. User may alternatively make a subjective assessment, based on expert knowledge, for instance, of a confidence level to assign based on such findings, and enter that confidence level. Statistics and/or user-entered confidence level in identification method may be used as multipliers or otherwise combined with confidence-level calculations as described in further detail below, or otherwise assigning a confidence level as a function of the confidence level in the identity. Authenticating device 104 may also determine confidence level in identity as a function of, for instance, one or more algorithms collecting statistics concerning degree of accuracy in past iterations of method 400 of a particular process for identifying at least a cryptographic evaluator 112.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to include relevant information regarding the identification of the assertion, such all the factors stated above, particularly the reason of the assertion and the technique used to raise the assertion as such information would be important in determining the threshold for the confidence level associated with providing the verification. (Wentz [0125])
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 1:
Furthermore, Ingram teaches:
-wherein the first group or the first entity comprises an operator of the network.(Ingram [0036] The real-world server 130 may be configured to allow users (e.g., first user 110) registered with the real-world server 130 to perform one or more data interactions in the real-world environment. Similarly, virtual-world server 150 may be configured to allow users (e.g., first user 110) registered with the virtual-world server 150 to perform one or more data interactions in the virtual environment 102 (e.g., a metaverse environment). In one embodiment, the real-world server 130 and the virtual-world server 150 are owned and/or operated by the same entity/organization. In this context, virtual-world server 150 may be configured to allow users (e.g., first user 110) registered with the real-world server 130 to perform one or more data interactions in the virtual environment 102 (e.g., a metaverse environment). In alternative embodiments, the real-world server 130 and the virtual-world server 150 may be owned and/or operated by different entities/organizations.)
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the device of claim 1
Furthermore, Wentz teaches:
- wherein the interaction maps to first data within a first block of a blockchain. (Wentz[0049] In an embodiment, first digitally signed assertion may be authenticated with a first instance of temporally sequential file 120 prior to subsequent entry of a second digitally signed assertion, or in other words the first digitally signed assertion may be recorded in a first block which is authenticated, prior to entry in a second,)
- wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining, from the first communication device, a selection of the first block from a plurality of blocks within the blockchain. (Wentz [0095] With continued reference to FIG. 3, in an embodiment, temporally sequential listing 120 is copied or provided in its entirety to each at least a cryptographic evaluator 112. Alternatively or additionally, temporally sequential listing 120 may be copied to some cryptographic evaluators 112 but not to others; for instance, where the temporally sequential listing 120 is a block chain or a consensus ledger created for exchanges of virtual currency or other commercial exchanges, the temporally sequential listing 120 may be copied to all cryptographic evaluators 112 participating in such exchanges. In other embodiments still, various components of temporally sequential listing 120 are distributed to various computing devices, such as the cryptographic evaluators 112 in a network…Where temporally sequential listing 120 is centralized, computing devices that do not possess a copy of the temporally sequential listing 120 may obtain information from and convey information to the temporally sequential listing 120 by communicating with the computing device or set of computing devices on which the centralized temporally sequential listing 120 is maintained.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to map the interactions to blocks in a blockchain to access the security benefits of a blockchain system and include the ability to obtain the relevant block within a blockchain. One would be motivated to make this combination as it would provide the benefit of securing the data using decentralized platforms such as blockchain (Wentz[0095])
Regarding Claim 16:
Ingram teaches A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
-assessing a validity of a first (interaction) of a first user in a first virtual world of a metaverse to a second user via a first entity;(Ingram [0070] As described above, virtual-world server 150 may be configured to use a user credential 152 collected from the first user 110, generated by the first user 110 or assigned to the first user 110 during real-world data interactions with the first user 110, to verify identity of the first user 110 in the virtual environment 102. Thus, the user credential 152 provides the first user 110 access to the virtual environment 102. For example, the user credential 152 may be used by the virtual-world server 150 to verify that the first avatar 114 belongs to and is controlled by the first user 110. [0017] While engaging in the virtual environment 102 via the first avatar 114, the first user 110 may interact with a plurality of other users, objects and/or entities (e.g., virtual sub-environment 120) through a respective avatar. For example, the second user 112 may attempt to engage in an interaction session with the first avatar 114 through a second avatar 116 associated with the second user 112. In another example, the first avatar 114 of the first user 110 may access a virtual sub-environment 120 within the virtual environment 102 and perform virtual data interactions within the virtual sub-environment 120. [0044] In one or more embodiments, the virtual data file (e.g. virtual data file 160) is a software application running on a computing node owned and/or operated by the respective user (e.g., first user 110). For example, when the first user 110 desires to receive virtual data objects 162 from a virtual data file of the second user 112, first user 110 may direct the second user 112 to a unique cryptographic address (e.g., public key) issued by the virtual data file 160.))
- the first (interaction) comprising an indication of an identity of the first user, (Ingram [0045] and an identity of an entity or user (e.g., second user 112) with which the data interaction was performed. In one embodiment, the virtual-world data interaction history 164 may be stored as part of the user data 132 in the real-world server 130.)
- wherein the indication of the identity of the first user is selected from a plurality of indications of a respective plurality of identities for the first user as approved by the first entity; (Ingram [0041] The first user 110 may additionally register with the virtual-world server 150. In one embodiment, when initially registering with the virtual-world server 150, the first user 110 may provide to the virtual-world server 150 a credential (e.g., username and password) that provides the first user 110 access to the real-world server 130. In one embodiment, a single web page or web portal may allow the first user 110 to register with the real-world server 130 as well as the virtual-world server 150. The first user 110 may first register with the real-world server 130 as described above and generate credentials that allow the first user 110 access to the real-world server 130 and services provided by the real-world server 130. [0050] In one or more embodiments, virtual-world server 150 may be configured to use a user credential 152 collected from the first user 110, generated by the first user 110 or assigned to the first user 110 during real-world data interactions with the first user 110, to verify identity of the first user 110 in the virtual environment 102. Thus, the user credential 152 provides the first user 110 access to the virtual environment 102. For example, the user credential 152 may be used by the virtual-world server 150 to verify that the first avatar 114 belongs to and is controlled by the first user 110. [0071] When the two retina scans match, virtual-world server 150 determines that the first avatar 114 is associated with the first user 110 and may authorize and allow the first avatar 114 to enter the virtual environment 102.) This limitation in view of specification paragraphs [0027-0030] is interpreted to cover the scope of any indication of identities that is matched with a list of approved identities, for example, checking the name, avatar style or image and matching it with a plurality of approved identities. Multiple excerpts in Ingram teach such a feature.
- determining, subsequent to the assessing of the validity of the first assertion, that the first user has migrated from the first virtual world to a second virtual world of the metaverse, the second virtual world being different from the first virtual world; (Ingram [0054] The first user 110 may request to be provided access to the virtual sub-environment 120 in return for one or more real-world data objects 136 and/or virtual data objects 162. In this context, virtual-world server 150 may be configured to generate the virtual security token 154 for the first user 110 in response to the first user 110 transferring one or more real-world data objects 136 and/or virtual data objects 162 to a pre-selected entity. In one embodiment, the first user 110 may send a request (e.g., via first user device 104) to the virtual-world server 150 to provide access to the virtual sub-environment 120. The first user 110 may engage in a virtual data interaction session with a virtual entity (not shown in FIG. 1) within the virtual environment 102 and make the request as part of the virtual data interaction with the virtual entity. The virtual entity may represent a real-world entity that manages or services the virtual sub-environment 120.
-obtaining, based on the determining, an indication of a second assertion of the first user in the second virtual world; (Ingram [0065] In one embodiment, the virtual security token 154 may provide access to the virtual sub-environment 120 for performing a specific virtual data interaction within the virtual sub-environment 120. The first user 110 may sign up ahead of time to perform the particular virtual data interaction within the virtual sub-environment 120... [0074] The first user 110 may first enter the virtual environment 102 (e.g., via first avatar 114) using the user credential 152 and then access the virtual sub-environment 120 using the virtual security token 154. Once the first avatar 114 of the first user 110 has accessed the virtual sub-environment 120, first user 110 may receive one or more services provided within the virtual sub-environment 120 and/or perform one or more virtual data interactions in the virtual sub-environment 120.)
- selecting, based on the obtaining, a second entity for assessing a validity of the second assertion, the second entity being different from the first entity. (Ingram [0017] While engaging in the virtual environment 102 via the first avatar 114, the first user 110 may interact with a plurality of other users, objects and/or entities (e.g., virtual sub-environment 120) through a respective avatar. For example, the second user 112 may attempt to engage in an interaction session with the first avatar 114 through a second avatar 116 associated with the second user 112. In another example, the first avatar 114 of the first user 110 may access a virtual sub-environment 120 within the virtual environment 102 and perform virtual data interactions within the virtual sub-environment 120. In the real-world environment, the second user 112 may be physically located at a distance away from the first user 110. The second user 112 may access the virtual environment 102 through the second user device 106 to control the second avatar 116 and attempt to engage in an interaction session with the first user 110 through the first avatar 114.)
However, Ingram fails to teach:
-That the interaction is an assertion
-presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user;
-obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be;
-based on the obtaining of the request, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, resulting in a modified badge; and
-presenting the modified badge to the second user.
Alternatively, Wentz teaches:
- wherein the interaction comprises an assertion involving the first user.(Wentz [0004] In an aspect, a method of authenticating a requesting device using verified evaluators includes receiving, by an authenticating device, at least a first digitally signed assertion from a requesting device, the at least a first digitally signed assertion linked to at least a verification datum. The method includes evaluating, by the authenticating device, at least a second digitally signed assertion, signed by at least a cryptographic evaluator, conferring a credential to the requesting device. The method includes validating, by the authenticating device, the credential as a function of the at least a second digitally signed assertion. The method includes authenticating, by the authenticating device, the requesting device based on the credential.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to substitute the interaction with an assertion as specifically designating it as an assertion, which implies that it is a statement or a particular claim in context, specifies its use in cryptography, which provides the benefit of increasing data security.(Wentz(Background))
However, the combination of Khan and Wentz still fail to teach or suggest:
-presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user;
-obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be;
-based on the obtaining of the request, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, resulting in a modified badge; and
-presenting the modified badge to the second user.
- subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.
Alternatively, Khan teaches:
-presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user; (Khan[Col. 18 Lines 19-23] As such the OED may display to the officer associated with the OED, as indicated by OED in second OED configuration 520B, wherein the privacy compliant representation 550 and unique identifier 540 are displayed. [Col. 18 Lines 43-50] Optionally, the EleID and/or a representation of the PhysID may be modified, i.e. redacted, in order to meet the appropriate privacy requirements which may be determined in dependence upon ... the requesting third party, the jurisdiction of issuance of the EleID/PhysID, the jurisdiction of the third party requesting verification, and an activity associated with the verification process. [Col. 18 Line 57- Col. 19 Line 4] Subsequently, for example in respect of an encounter with law enforcement, they receive a request upon their PED in respect to verifying their PhotoID... ) The requesting party is the “second user.” The “privacy compliant representation and unique identifier” which is a “redacted” version of the PhysID, is mapped to the partial badge.
-obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be; (Khan [Col. 18 Line 57- Col. 19 Line 4] ...The request having been issued by the law enforcement officer, in this example “OPP #7352”, based upon a request issued from a PED as depicted in third image 600C associated with the law enforcement officer which is routed to PHYSAP 155N and therein triggers provisioning of the request to the user's PED. The triggering request depicted in second image 600B wherein the user enters their user identity and password in respect of the request which is then communicated to the PHYSAPP 155N wherein the user's and officer's PEDs receive data relating to the user's driving license as depicted in fourth and fifth images 600D and 600E respectively.))
-based on the obtaining of the request and the authenticating, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, (Khan [Col. 18 Lines 11-42] As such the OED may display to the officer associated with the OED, as indicated by OED in second OED configuration 520B, wherein the privacy compliant representation 550 and unique identifier 540 are displayed. The officer associated with the OED can then compare these to the PhysID and/or EleID being offered by the user. In the instance of an EleID... the EIeID 530 together with a second unique identifier 535 provided to them within third response “7.” As such the EleIDAp in execution upon the user's PED provides information against which the officer with the information upon their OED can compare. As such the officer would be seeking to verify that the EleIDs match and the unique identifiers match. Optionally, as indicated within third OED configuration 520C the IA 510 may have communicated a second fractal 545 to the OED within second response “6.” This second fractal 545 may for example be a fractal associated with the PhysID and/or EIeID and bound to it at issuance (optionally this is also part of the PhysID and/or EleID. Optionally, the fractal, representation of PhysID and/or EIeID, and unique identifier may be provided upon the OED. [Col. 22 Lines 55-59] Unique identifier, eg. Text, image, fractal...) In the excerpt above, the process describes an officer checking a privacy compliant represent(partial badge), with a unique identifier or fractal to verify the user which is mapped to “security code”. The modified badge is mapped to a fractal bound to/part of the EleID, because it establishes a modified credential with higher levels of security
- resulting in a modified badge; and(Khan [Col. 8 Line 41- Col. 9 Line 3] Accordingly, a credential holder (user 165) is identity-proofed in-person by a trusted agent of the government photographic identity issuing authority, e.g. first and second PHYSAPs 155A and 155B. This process step 210, as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A, results in the issuance of photographic identity (Photo-ID) document (PhysID) 160A (step 220) and the credential holder's proofed identity being bound (step 230) to the government photographic identity document... In contrast, with second PHYSAP 155B, a similar process as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A may be employed, resulting in a second PhysID 160D, electronic ID document (EleID) 160B, and fractal 160C. The fractal 160C may, for example be a fractal image or be a fractal image with embedded encrypted data such as described by the inventors within U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/086,745 entitled “Verifiable Credentials and Methods Thereof” filed Dec. 3, 2014... [Col. 11 Line 49-54] Accordingly, the Token Management Service 110 comprises a Token Manager 115 that binds, denoted by Binding 120, the digital security certificates 125 to the user's 160 PEDs/FEDs such as depicted by first to third devices 130A to 130C respectively. [Col. 19 Lines 13-21]) Binding the user’s identity to permanently include the valid security codes is an example of “resulting in a modified badge,” which gives user’s higher trust levels of access.
-presenting the modified badge to the second user. (Khan [Col. 18 Lines 37-42] This second fractal 545 may for example be a fractal associated with the PhysID and/or EIeID and bound to it at issuance (optionally this is also part of the PhysID and/or EleID. Optionally, the fractal, representation of PhysID and/or EIeID, and unique identifier may be provided upon the OED. [Col. 17 Lines 36-39] This fractal 515 is then acquired by an official electronic device (OED) displayed in first OED configuration 520A. As displayed the OED is associated with the Iowa City Police Department.) Presenting the bound fractal to the OED of the police department is an example of presenting the modified badge to the second user.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ingram by adding the teachings of Khan, specifically, the steps of presenting an obscured badge, receiving an authentication code, binding the badge with a security code to generate and present a modified badge that has the combined credentials. This combination would yield the predictable outcome of implementing Khan’s security system as is, into Ingram’s virtual environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine as it would provide the benefit of utilizing blockchain technology to increase security without compromising on privacy. (Khan [Abstract] Identity information stored securely on a mobile device and information usable by the requestor to verify the identity and the identity presenter are delivered at the request of the identity owner. The patent claims describe the use, sharing and verification of personal and financial identity data with the identity owner's permission. The Identity owner retain complete control over distribution of their information.)
However, neither Ingram, Wentz, Khan, nor teach or suggest:
- subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.(This limitation is interpreted in view of paragraphs [0030]-[0032] of the instant specification, which the scope includes “the first user 202a may be able to change the characteristics associated with the identity that she would like to portray for herself to suit her preferences or role for the day, simply by choosing a given badge (or associated data/information) from the multiple of different badges that are available to her.”) However, neither Ingram, Wentz, nor Khan teach or suggest the availability for an individual to change their characteristics after the presenting of the modified badge to the second user.
Alternatively, Astarabadi discloses a system for meeting in a synthetic video conference feed, biometrically verifying the identity of a user, and rendering a synthetic virtual image in place of the frame of the user. Astarabadi suggests: - subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, (Astarabadi [0142] Furthermore, the second device can communicate verification status—of the first user—to the second user, as shown in FIG. 1C. [0143]... the second device can indicate that the first user's identity is verified, such as by rendering: a virtual “green” verification icon near the synthetic face image feed displayed on the second device; a textual notification that the first user is currently verified (e.g., “John G. identified”); or render a “verified” watermark over the synthetic face image feed. [0145] the second device can present a message or otherwise indicate that the first synthetic face image feed depicts an authentic representation of a past or modified physiognomy of the first user [0018] to verify the identity of a first user (e.g., based on her facial characteristics); to enable the first user to select a particular look model (or “avatar,” “skin”) for this video call only after verifying her identity; and to selectively enable the second device to access this particular look model; and vice versa for the second user.) In Khan, the step of presenting the fractal bound to the PhysId/EleID is mapped to “presenting the modified badge to the second user.” In Khan, such a step represents the verification of the identity to a second user. Similarly, in Astarabadi [0142-0145], the second user is presented with a verification of the first user such as a watermark, or a message that the synthetic face image is an authentic representation of a modified physiognomy. Either of these examples above, fall within the scope of a “modified badge.” The second presentation of “another modified badge” occurs after the verification, in which the user is displayed as a skin, which falls within the scope of “another modified badge” in view of present specification [0031] “various characteristics a user would like to portray themself for the day.” Therefore, Astarabadi’s “particular look model (or avatar, skin) satisfies the “another modified badge” limitation.
- wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and (Astarabadi [0145] Similarly, if the first look model does represent an authentic physiognomy of the first user generated at a different time, the second device can present a message or otherwise indicate that the first synthetic face image feed depicts an authentic representation of a past or modified physiognomy of the first user. Similarly, if the first look model does represent an authentic physiognomy of the first user generated just before or during the video call, the second device can present a message or otherwise indicate that the first synthetic face image feed depicts an authentic representation of the user's physiognomy at the current time. [0030] Furthermore, the first device (and/or the remote computer system) can verify the identity of the first and second users before enabling the first user to access unique avatars or “skins” associated with her accounts; and the second device can reconstruct a video feed captured at the first device—but depicting the first user according to her selected avatar or “skin,” which may differ from the first user's true appearance—only when the identity of the first user is verified.) Astarabadi [0030], “which may differ from the first user’s true appearance” satisfies the limitation of “different from the indication of the identity of the first user.” Astarabadi [0145] teaches the second identity including second content (the modified physiogmy of the first user (avatar skin)).
- wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.(Astarabadi [0083] The user's device (and/or the remote computer system) can also interface with the user to generate a (unique) skin model (or “avatar”) that contains a set of coefficients and is configured to generate a synthetic face image representing an authentic physiognomy—different from the user—when inserted into the synthetic face generator with a facial landmark container extracted from an image of the user's face. More specifically, the device can interface with the user to generate a custom skin model in a format similar to the user's face or look model but that produces synthetic face images that differ—subtly (e.g., a change in eye and skin color) or significantly (e.g., different gender and facial structure)—from the user's true physiognomy. [105] 7.2 Face/Look Model Selection [0106] Upon confirming this correspondence, the first device can prompt the user to select from a set of available look models—stored in the user's account or otherwise associated with the user—for the upcoming video call. [0156] In one variation shown in FIG. 7, the remote computer system (or the first device) stores encrypted look models for users.) Therefore, these alternative skin models, which the user has generated, are chosen from a list of available look models. This satisfies the limitation above, because the selected skin is selected from the plurality of available look models stored in the user account (first user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to further modify the combination of Ingram, Wentz, and Khan with the teachings of Astarabadi, specifically, the ability for a user to present another modified badge (or identity/appearance) to a second user out of a list of available identities for the first user. By simply substituting these steps at the end of Khan’s presentation of a modified badge, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the combination to yield the predictable outcome of presenting another modified badge to a second user, subsequent to the presentation of the modified badge, wherein the modified badge includes content, including an indication of a second identity that is different from the first identity, which has been selected from a plurality of identities for the first user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of obscuring the user’s identity from another attendee whilst preventing impersonation of the first user. Another benefit of the system that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the systems is reduction in latency and packet loss between the transmission of data, whilst maintaining the realism and authenticity of the first user’s facial expressions. (Astarabadi [0089] Therefore, this new skin model may not depict a current or past physiognomy of the user but rather an authentic-looking, purely-synthetic, AI-generated representation of a human face. The user may then elect this skin model during a subsequent video call, such as to obscure the user's identity from another attendee on the video call. [0030] More specifically, because a look model in the first user's account may represent a model for transforming a facial landmark container into an authentic representation of the first user's face, someone other than the first user may impersonate the first user by feeding facial landmark containers and the look model into the synthetic face generator. [0024] Accordingly, this stream of facial landmark containers may not (or may very rarely) approach throughput limitations of these networks, thereby enabling these networks to transmit this lightweight stream of facial landmark containers from the first device to the second device with low latency, low packet loss, and high consistency despite changes in traffic between other devices connected to these networks and even during periods of high traffic on these networks. [0029] Therefore, though the first device streams a feed of facial landmark containers to the second device rather than a live video feed of photographic video frames, the second device can leverage the look model of the first user and the synthetic face image to generate a photorealistic feed of synthetic images that both: appear to the second user as the first user; and authentically reproduce the first user's facial expression, mouth shape, and a position relative to the first device.)
Regarding Claim 17:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16,
Furthermore, Wentz teaches:
-wherein the selecting is based on a level of the validity of the first assertion.(Wentz[0035] Authenticating device 104 may be designed and configured to receive at least a first digitally signed assertion 116, assign at least a confidence level to the at least a cryptographic evaluator 112, provide the at least a digitally signed assertion 116 to the cryptographic evaluator, receive, from the at least a cryptographic evaluator 112, at least an appraisal of the at least a first digitally signed assertion 116, and authenticate the at least a first digitally signed assertion 116 as a function of the at least an appraisal and the at least a confidence level.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to include a level of validity as certain systems would have varying needs for security which cannot be universally associated with a single standard for verification. (Wentz 0030)
Regarding Claim 18:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16
Furthermore, Wentz teaches:
- wherein the selecting is based on an identity of the first entity.(Wentz [0029] In some embodiments, a third party such as a certificate authority (CA) is available to verify that the possessor of the private key is a particular entity; thus, if the certificate authority may be trusted, and the private key has not been stolen, the ability of an entity to produce a digital signature confirms the identity of the entity and links the file to the entity in a verifiable way.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to selecting a second entity based on the identity of the first identity as varying entities would have the ability to confirm the identity of the first user. In the stated prior art example, the second entity is the third party certificate authority used to verify that the user possesses a particular key to gain access. (Wentz [0029])
Regarding Claim 19:
Ingram teaches A method, comprising:
- obtaining, by a processing system including a processor, an indication of an (interaction) involving a first avatar of a first user; (Ingram [0018] Before the interaction between the first avatar 114 and the second avatar 116 occurs or the first avatar 114 can access the virtual sub-environment 120, the virtual-world server 150 may authenticate that the first avatar 114 is associated with the first user 110 and not an unauthorized third-party.)
- the indication of the (interaction) comprising a first indication of a first identity of the first user to a second user, (Ingram [0017] While engaging in the virtual environment 102 via the first avatar 114, the first user 110 may interact with a plurality of other users, objects and/or entities (e.g., virtual sub-environment 120) through a respective avatar. For example, the second user 112 may attempt to engage in an interaction session with the first avatar 114 through a second avatar 116 associated with the second user 112. In another example, the first avatar 114 of the first user 110 may access a virtual sub-environment 120 within the virtual environment 102 and perform virtual data interactions within the virtual sub-environment 120. [0044] In one or more embodiments, the virtual data file (e.g. virtual data file 160) is a software application running on a computing node owned and/or operated by the respective user (e.g., first user 110). For example, when the first user 110 desires to receive virtual data objects 162 from a virtual data file of the second user 112, first user 110 may direct the second user 112 to a unique cryptographic address (e.g., public key) issued by the virtual data file 160.) [0045] and an identity of an entity or user (e.g., second user 112) with which the data interaction was performed. In one embodiment, the virtual-world data interaction history 164 may be stored as part of the user data 132 in the real-world server 130.)
- wherein the first indication of the first identity is selected by the first avatar from a plurality of indications of a respective plurality of identities for the first user as approved by a first group or a first entity; (Ingram [0041] The first user 110 may additionally register with the virtual-world server 150. In one embodiment, when initially registering with the virtual-world server 150, the first user 110 may provide to the virtual-world server 150 a credential (e.g., username and password) that provides the first user 110 access to the real-world server 130. In one embodiment, a single web page or web portal may allow the first user 110 to register with the real-world server 130 as well as the virtual-world server 150. The first user 110 may first register with the real-world server 130 as described above and generate credentials that allow the first user 110 access to the real-world server 130 and services provided by the real-world server 130. [0050] In one or more embodiments, virtual-world server 150 may be configured to use a user credential 152 collected from the first user 110, generated by the first user 110 or assigned to the first user 110 during real-world data interactions with the first user 110, to verify identity of the first user 110 in the virtual environment 102. Thus, the user credential 152 provides the first user 110 access to the virtual environment 102. For example, the user credential 152 may be used by the virtual-world server 150 to verify that the first avatar 114 belongs to and is controlled by the first user 110. [0071] When the two retina scans match, virtual-world server 150 determines that the first avatar 114 is associated with the first user 110 and may authorize and allow the first avatar 114 to enter the virtual environment 102.) This limitation in view of specification paragraphs [0027-0030] is interpreted to cover the scope of any indication of identities that is matched with a list of approved identities, for example, checking the name, avatar style or image and matching it with a plurality of approved identities. Multiple excerpts in Ingram teach such a feature.
-and authorizing, by the processing system and based on the assessing, a first action to be taken by the first avatar, a second action to be taken by a second avatar of a second user, or a combination thereof. (Ingram [0039] Once registered with the real-world server 130, the real-world server 130 may allow the first user 110 to perform one or more data interactions in the real-world environment. For example, a real-world data interaction may include transferring one or more real-world data objects 136 from the real-world data file 134 of the first user 110 to a second real-world data file (not shown) of the second user 112. Another example data interaction may include receiving one or more real-world data objects 136 in the real-world data file 134 of the first user 110 from the second real-world data file of the second user 112. Another example data interaction may include requesting by the first user 110 transfer of real-world data objects from a data file of a second user to a user data file of a third user as part of satisfying an agreement between the first user 110 and the third user. Another example data interaction may include modifying at least a portion of the user data 132 (e.g., user credentials to access the real-world server, phone numbers, residential address, email address, information relating to user assets etc.) stored at the real-world server 130. It may be noted that a data interaction in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure refers to any interaction in the real-world environment and/or virtual environment 102 that includes transfer of data between computing nodes (e.g., first user device 104, second user device 106, real-world server 130 and virtual-world server 150).
However, Ingram fails to teach:
-that the interaction is an assertion
-assessing, by the processing system and based on the obtaining, a validity of the assertion relative to a threshold;
- presenting, by the processing system, a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the first indication of the first identity of the first user;
-obtaining, by the processing system and based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be;
-based on the obtaining of the request and the authenticating, modifying, by the processing system, the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, resulting in a modified badge; and
- presenting, by the processing system, the modified badge to the second user.
- subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.
However, Wentz teaches:
-that the interaction is an assertion. (Wentz [0004] In an aspect, a method of authenticating a requesting device using verified evaluators includes receiving, by an authenticating device, at least a first digitally signed assertion from a requesting device, the at least a first digitally signed assertion linked to at least a verification datum. The method includes evaluating, by the authenticating device, at least a second digitally signed assertion, signed by at least a cryptographic evaluator, conferring a credential to the requesting device. The method includes validating, by the authenticating device, the credential as a function of the at least a second digitally signed assertion. The method includes authenticating, by the authenticating device, the requesting device based on the credential.)
-assessing, by the processing system and based on the obtaining, a validity of the assertion relative to a threshold; (Wentz [0145] Still referring to FIG. 5, credential may include at least an authorization datum. As used herein, an authorization datum is a datum granting one or more rights that may be requested in an authorization request as described above. For instance, and without limitation, an authorization datum may include a digital certificate as described above; digital certificate may, for instance and without limitation, associate an identity of a user or entity operating requesting device 140 with an identifier of remote device, confer upon remote device access rights to one or more resources incorporated in or connected to system 100, associate requesting device 140 with a given confidence level, grant a transfer of assets, data, and/or access rights from one device to another, or the like…[0148] Authenticating device 104 may validate the credential as a function of the confidence level; for instance, and as described in further detail above in reference to FIGS. 1-4, authenticating device 104 may compare a confidence level in and/or associated with credential to a threshold. Authenticating device may, in a non-limiting example, determine an aggregate confidence level in the plurality of cryptographic evaluators, such as a plurality of cryptographic evaluators signing credential as described above, compare the aggregate confidence level to a validation threshold, and validate the credential as a function of the determination; this may be performed, without limitation, as described above in reference to FIGS. 1-4. Authenticating device 104 may alternatively or additionally determine that credential is not valid, where credential fails one or more tests, comparisons, or the like as described in this disclosure for validating credential; for instance, where a confidence level as described above does not meet a threshold, authenticating device 104 may determine that credential is not valid, and deny requesting device 140 ability to perform a requested action as described above.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to authorize the access to a resource only at a given threshold of validity as doing so would ensure security of data, given that the confidence threshold would vary depending on the likelihood that the associated device is tied to the identity of the user. (Wentz[0145-0148])
However, the combination of Khan and Wentz still fail to teach or suggest:
-presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user;
-obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be;
-based on the obtaining of the request, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, resulting in a modified badge; and
-presenting the modified badge to the second user.
- subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.
Alternatively, Khan teaches:
-presenting a partial badge to the second user, wherein the partial badge includes content, the content including the indication of the identity of the first user; (Khan[Col. 18 Lines 19-23] As such the OED may display to the officer associated with the OED, as indicated by OED in second OED configuration 520B, wherein the privacy compliant representation 550 and unique identifier 540 are displayed. [Col. 18 Lines 43-50] Optionally, the EleID and/or a representation of the PhysID may be modified, i.e. redacted, in order to meet the appropriate privacy requirements which may be determined in dependence upon ... the requesting third party, the jurisdiction of issuance of the EleID/PhysID, the jurisdiction of the third party requesting verification, and an activity associated with the verification process. [Col. 18 Line 57- Col. 19 Line 4] Subsequently, for example in respect of an encounter with law enforcement, they receive a request upon their PED in respect to verifying their PhotoID... ) The requesting party is the “second user.” The “privacy compliant representation and unique identifier” which is a “redacted” version of the PhysID, is mapped to the partial badge.
-obtaining, based on the presenting of the partial badge, a request from the second user for the first user to demonstrate who the first user claims to be; (Khan [Col. 18 Line 57- Col. 19 Line 4] ...The request having been issued by the law enforcement officer, in this example “OPP #7352”, based upon a request issued from a PED as depicted in third image 600C associated with the law enforcement officer which is routed to PHYSAP 155N and therein triggers provisioning of the request to the user's PED. The triggering request depicted in second image 600B wherein the user enters their user identity and password in respect of the request which is then communicated to the PHYSAPP 155N wherein the user's and officer's PEDs receive data relating to the user's driving license as depicted in fourth and fifth images 600D and 600E respectively.))
-based on the obtaining of the request and the authenticating, modifying the content of the partial badge to implement a security code specified by the second user, (Khan [Col. 18 Lines 11-42] As such the OED may display to the officer associated with the OED, as indicated by OED in second OED configuration 520B, wherein the privacy compliant representation 550 and unique identifier 540 are displayed. The officer associated with the OED can then compare these to the PhysID and/or EleID being offered by the user. In the instance of an EleID... the EIeID 530 together with a second unique identifier 535 provided to them within third response “7.” As such the EleIDAp in execution upon the user's PED provides information against which the officer with the information upon their OED can compare. As such the officer would be seeking to verify that the EleIDs match and the unique identifiers match. Optionally, as indicated within third OED configuration 520C the IA 510 may have communicated a second fractal 545 to the OED within second response “6.” This second fractal 545 may for example be a fractal associated with the PhysID and/or EIeID and bound to it at issuance (optionally this is also part of the PhysID and/or EleID. Optionally, the fractal, representation of PhysID and/or EIeID, and unique identifier may be provided upon the OED. [Col. 22 Lines 55-59] Unique identifier, eg. Text, image, fractal...) In the excerpt above, the process describes an officer checking a privacy compliant represent(partial badge), with a unique identifier or fractal to verify the user which is mapped to “security code”. The modified badge is mapped to a fractal bound to/part of the EleID, because it establishes a modified credential with higher levels of security
- resulting in a modified badge; and(Khan [Col. 8 Line 41- Col. 9 Line 3] Accordingly, a credential holder (user 165) is identity-proofed in-person by a trusted agent of the government photographic identity issuing authority, e.g. first and second PHYSAPs 155A and 155B. This process step 210, as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A, results in the issuance of photographic identity (Photo-ID) document (PhysID) 160A (step 220) and the credential holder's proofed identity being bound (step 230) to the government photographic identity document... In contrast, with second PHYSAP 155B, a similar process as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A may be employed, resulting in a second PhysID 160D, electronic ID document (EleID) 160B, and fractal 160C. The fractal 160C may, for example be a fractal image or be a fractal image with embedded encrypted data such as described by the inventors within U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/086,745 entitled “Verifiable Credentials and Methods Thereof” filed Dec. 3, 2014... [Col. 11 Line 49-54] Accordingly, the Token Management Service 110 comprises a Token Manager 115 that binds, denoted by Binding 120, the digital security certificates 125 to the user's 160 PEDs/FEDs such as depicted by first to third devices 130A to 130C respectively. [Col. 19 Lines 13-21]) Binding the user’s identity to permanently include the valid security codes is an example of “resulting in a modified badge,” which gives user’s higher trust levels of access.
-presenting the modified badge to the second user. (Khan [Col. 18 Lines 37-42] This second fractal 545 may for example be a fractal associated with the PhysID and/or EIeID and bound to it at issuance (optionally this is also part of the PhysID and/or EleID. Optionally, the fractal, representation of PhysID and/or EIeID, and unique identifier may be provided upon the OED. [Col. 17 Lines 36-39] This fractal 515 is then acquired by an official electronic device (OED) displayed in first OED configuration 520A. As displayed the OED is associated with the Iowa City Police Department.) Presenting the bound fractal to the OED of the police department is an example of presenting the modified badge to the second user.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ingram by adding the teachings of Khan, specifically, the steps of presenting an obscured badge, receiving an authentication code, binding the badge with a security code to generate and present a modified badge that has the combined credentials. This combination would yield the predictable outcome of implementing Khan’s security system as is, into Ingram’s virtual environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine as it would provide the benefit of utilizing blockchain technology to increase security without compromising on privacy. (Khan [Abstract] Identity information stored securely on a mobile device and information usable by the requestor to verify the identity and the identity presenter are delivered at the request of the identity owner. The patent claims describe the use, sharing and verification of personal and financial identity data with the identity owner's permission. The Identity owner retain complete control over distribution of their information.)
However, neither Ingram, Wentz, Khan, nor teach or suggest:
- subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.(This limitation is interpreted in view of paragraphs [0030]-[0032] of the instant specification, which the scope includes “the first user 202a may be able to change the characteristics associated with the identity that she would like to portray for herself to suit her preferences or role for the day, simply by choosing a given badge (or associated data/information) from the multiple of different badges that are available to her.”) However, neither Ingram, Wentz, nor Khan teach or suggest the availability for an individual to change their characteristics after the presenting of the modified badge to the second user.
Alternatively, Astarabadi discloses a system for meeting in a synthetic video conference feed, biometrically verifying the identity of a user, and rendering a synthetic virtual image in place of the frame of the user. Astarabadi suggests: - subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user, presenting another modified badge to the second user, (Astarabadi [0142] Furthermore, the second device can communicate verification status—of the first user—to the second user, as shown in FIG. 1C. [0143]... the second device can indicate that the first user's identity is verified, such as by rendering: a virtual “green” verification icon near the synthetic face image feed displayed on the second device; a textual notification that the first user is currently verified (e.g., “John G. identified”); or render a “verified” watermark over the synthetic face image feed. [0145] the second device can present a message or otherwise indicate that the first synthetic face image feed depicts an authentic representation of a past or modified physiognomy of the first user [0018] to verify the identity of a first user (e.g., based on her facial characteristics); to enable the first user to select a particular look model (or “avatar,” “skin”) for this video call only after verifying her identity; and to selectively enable the second device to access this particular look model; and vice versa for the second user.) In Khan, the step of presenting the fractal bound to the PhysId/EleID is mapped to “presenting the modified badge to the second user.” In Khan, such a step represents the verification of the identity to a second user. Similarly, in Astarabadi [0142-0145], the second user is presented with a verification of the first user such as a watermark, or a message that the synthetic face image is an authentic representation of a modified physiognomy. Either of these examples above, fall within the scope of a “modified badge.” The second presentation of “another modified badge” occurs after the verification, in which the user is displayed as a skin, which falls within the scope of “another modified badge” in view of present specification [0031] “various characteristics a user would like to portray themself for the day.” Therefore, Astarabadi’s “particular look model (or avatar, skin) satisfies the “another modified badge” limitation.
- wherein the another modified badge includes second content, wherein the second content includes an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and (Astarabadi [0145] Similarly, if the first look model does represent an authentic physiognomy of the first user generated at a different time, the second device can present a message or otherwise indicate that the first synthetic face image feed depicts an authentic representation of a past or modified physiognomy of the first user. Similarly, if the first look model does represent an authentic physiognomy of the first user generated just before or during the video call, the second device can present a message or otherwise indicate that the first synthetic face image feed depicts an authentic representation of the user's physiognomy at the current time. [0030] Furthermore, the first device (and/or the remote computer system) can verify the identity of the first and second users before enabling the first user to access unique avatars or “skins” associated with her accounts; and the second device can reconstruct a video feed captured at the first device—but depicting the first user according to her selected avatar or “skin,” which may differ from the first user's true appearance—only when the identity of the first user is verified.) Astarabadi [0030], “which may differ from the first user’s true appearance” satisfies the limitation of “different from the indication of the identity of the first user.” Astarabadi [0145] teaches the second identity including second content (the modified physiogmy of the first user (avatar skin)).
- wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.(Astarabadi [0083] The user's device (and/or the remote computer system) can also interface with the user to generate a (unique) skin model (or “avatar”) that contains a set of coefficients and is configured to generate a synthetic face image representing an authentic physiognomy—different from the user—when inserted into the synthetic face generator with a facial landmark container extracted from an image of the user's face. More specifically, the device can interface with the user to generate a custom skin model in a format similar to the user's face or look model but that produces synthetic face images that differ—subtly (e.g., a change in eye and skin color) or significantly (e.g., different gender and facial structure)—from the user's true physiognomy. [105] 7.2 Face/Look Model Selection [0106] Upon confirming this correspondence, the first device can prompt the user to select from a set of available look models—stored in the user's account or otherwise associated with the user—for the upcoming video call. [0156] In one variation shown in FIG. 7, the remote computer system (or the first device) stores encrypted look models for users.) Therefore, these alternative skin models, which the user has generated, are chosen from a list of available look models. This satisfies the limitation above, because the selected skin is selected from the plurality of available look models stored in the user account (first user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to further modify the combination of Ingram, Wentz, and Khan with the teachings of Astarabadi, specifically, the ability for a user to present another modified badge (or identity/appearance) to a second user out of a list of available identities for the first user. By simply substituting these steps at the end of Khan’s presentation of a modified badge, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the combination to yield the predictable outcome of presenting another modified badge to a second user, subsequent to the presentation of the modified badge, wherein the modified badge includes content, including an indication of a second identity that is different from the first identity, which has been selected from a plurality of identities for the first user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of obscuring the user’s identity from another attendee whilst preventing impersonation of the first user. Another benefit of the system that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the systems is reduction in latency and packet loss between the transmission of data, whilst maintaining the realism and authenticity of the first user’s facial expressions. (Astarabadi [0089] Therefore, this new skin model may not depict a current or past physiognomy of the user but rather an authentic-looking, purely-synthetic, AI-generated representation of a human face. The user may then elect this skin model during a subsequent video call, such as to obscure the user's identity from another attendee on the video call. [0030] More specifically, because a look model in the first user's account may represent a model for transforming a facial landmark container into an authentic representation of the first user's face, someone other than the first user may impersonate the first user by feeding facial landmark containers and the look model into the synthetic face generator. [0024] Accordingly, this stream of facial landmark containers may not (or may very rarely) approach throughput limitations of these networks, thereby enabling these networks to transmit this lightweight stream of facial landmark containers from the first device to the second device with low latency, low packet loss, and high consistency despite changes in traffic between other devices connected to these networks and even during periods of high traffic on these networks. [0029] Therefore, though the first device streams a feed of facial landmark containers to the second device rather than a live video feed of photographic video frames, the second device can leverage the look model of the first user and the synthetic face image to generate a photorealistic feed of synthetic images that both: appear to the second user as the first user; and authentically reproduce the first user's facial expression, mouth shape, and a position relative to the first device.)
Regarding Claim 22:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests teach the method of claim 19.
Furthermore, Ingram teaches:
- The method of claim 19, wherein the first indication of the first identity of the first user comprises a first name of the first user and a first image of the first user, wherein the second indication of the second identity of the first user included in the plurality of indications of the respective plurality of identities for the first user comprises a second name of the first user and a second image of the first user, wherein the first name is different from the second name and the first image is different from the second image.(Ingram [0035] Referring back to FIG. 1, in one or more embodiments, one or both of the real-world server 130 and the virtual-world server 150, and one or more user devices (e.g., second user device 106) may be part of an Information Technology (IT) infrastructure of an entity or organization. For example, second user 112 may be a representative of the organization who may use the second user device 106 to enter the virtual environment 102 and virtually interact with one or more users (e.g., first user 110) via the second avatar 116 to provide services to the first user 110. [0037] In one or more embodiments, as the first user 110 initially registers with the real-world server 130 in the real-world environment, the real-world server 130 may collect several pieces of information from the user including information relating to the identity of the user such as legal name, social security number, biometrics (e.g., fingerprints, retina scans, face ID etc.), residence address, phone numbers, assets owned by the user, and copies of government issued documents (e.g., driver license, state identity card etc.). This information is stored by real-world server 130 as part of user data 132 of the first user 110. In one embodiment, at least a portion of the user data 132 relating to the first user 110 collected in the real-world environment may be stored in the virtual-world server 150. Once the identity of the first user 110 is confirmed and all other information provided by the first user 110 is verified to be correct, the real-world server 130 may generate a real-world data file 134 for the first user 110 in which the first user 110 may store real-world data objects 136 owned by the first user 110.) This claim is further limiting the claim it depends on by defining the “indication of the identity” to include a user’s name and photo. Ingram has been shown to include an identity of the user including a name and fingerprints/face ID, which fall within the scope of images.
Regarding Claim 23:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests teach the method of claim 19,
However, Ingram fails to teach:
- wherein the first user is an employee of the first group or the first entity, wherein the assessing of the validity of the assertion relative to the threshold based on a use of artificial intelligence
Alternatively, Wentz teaches:
- wherein the assessing of the validity of the assertion relative to the threshold. (Wentz [0145] Still referring to FIG. 5, credential may include at least an authorization datum. As used herein, an authorization datum is a datum granting one or more rights that may be requested in an authorization request as described above. For instance, and without limitation, an authorization datum may include a digital certificate as described above; digital certificate may, for instance and without limitation, associate an identity of a user or entity operating requesting device 140 with an identifier of remote device, confer upon remote device access rights to one or more resources incorporated in or connected to system 100, associate requesting device 140 with a given confidence level, grant a transfer of assets, data, and/or access rights from one device to another, or the like…[0148] Authenticating device 104 may validate the credential as a function of the confidence level; for instance, and as described in further detail above in reference to FIGS. 1-4, authenticating device 104 may compare a confidence level in and/or associated with credential to a threshold. Authenticating device may, in a non-limiting example, determine an aggregate confidence level in the plurality of cryptographic evaluators, such as a plurality of cryptographic evaluators signing credential as described above, compare the aggregate confidence level to a validation threshold, and validate the credential as a function of the determination; this may be performed, without limitation, as described above in reference to FIGS. 1-4. Authenticating device 104 may alternatively or additionally determine that credential is not valid, where credential fails one or more tests, comparisons, or the like as described in this disclosure for validating credential; for instance, where a confidence level as described above does not meet a threshold, authenticating device 104 may determine that credential is not valid, and deny requesting device 140 ability to perform a requested action as described above. )
-based on a use of artificial intelligence (Wentz [0109] This may be repeated until a desired number of cryptographic evaluators 112 is selected; “desired” number may be a raw threshold number, an aggregate confidence level as described in further detail below, or the solution to another optimization problem such as optimization of confidence versus speed as described in further detail below. Alternatively or additionally, optimal selection may make use of data concerning previously performed transactions; use of such data may include selection of an acceptably rapid previous transaction, or use of a plurality of previous selections to produce an algorithmic or mathematical solution to optimal selection using, e.g. a polynomial regression process, a neural-net machine learning process, or the like. Persons skilled in the art will be aware of various machine learning, deep learning, or other adaptive techniques that may be used to approach such an optimization problem, upon reviewing the entirety of this disclosure.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of the foregoing teaches of Wentz with motivation to authorize the access to a resource only at a given threshold of validity as doing so would ensure security of data, given that the confidence threshold would vary depending on the likelihood that the associated device is tied to the identity of the user. (Wentz[0145-0148])
However, neither Ingram nor Wentz teaches or discloses:
- wherein the first user is an employee of the first group or the first entity
Alternatively, Khan teaches:
-wherein in the first user is an employee (Khan [0050] A “user” or “credential holder” as used herein refers to an individual who, either locally or remotely, by their engagement with a service provider, third party provider, enterprise, social network, social media etc. via a dashboard, web service, website, software plug-in, software application, or graphical user interface provides an electronic credential as part of their authentication with the service provider, third party provider, enterprise, social network, social media etc. This includes, but is not limited to, private individuals, employees of organizations and/or enterprises, members of community organizations, members of charity organizations, men, women, children, and teenagers. [0047] An “enterprise” as used herein may refer to, but is not limited to, a provider of a service and/or a product to a user, customer, client, or consumer. This includes, but is not limited to, a retail outlet, a store, a market, an online marketplace, a manufacturer, an online retailer, a charity, a utility, and a service provider. Such enterprises may be directly owned and controlled by a company or may be owned and operated by a franchisee under the direction and management of a franchiser. [0080] As described supra the user 165 may present their first or second PhysIDs 160A and 160D respectively at a storefront retailer/government office or kiosk/enterprise, depicted as first and second store front relying parties 170A and 170B respectively, to identify themselves in the presence of an agent of the store front relying party.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to substitute the Ingram’s first user with Khan’s user or credential holder which can include an employee of organization. The combination would yield the predictable outcome of the first user being an employee because access control systems in Ingram can be applied to any individual, especially employees of an organization. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by Khan’s benefit of increasing the authenticatable of ID documents. (Khan [0006] Accordingly, the inventors address these issues through the provisioning of electronic ID documents which when presented to a third party are associated with provisioning of data to the third party that allows them to verify the presented electronic ID document. Further, the inventors by linking the electronic ID document to its physical ID document counterpart or tying the electronic ID document to the physical individual provide authenticable electronic ID documents.)
Claims 20 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram(US 20240022561 A1) in view of Wentz (US 20220123948 A1), further in view of Khan (US 11139976 B2), further in view of Astarabadi (US 20210314526 A1), further in view of Bivens et al. (US 20240004975 A1) hereinafter referred to as Bivens.
Regarding Claim 20:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teaches or suggests the method of claim 19
Furthermore, Wentz teaches:
-wherein at least one of the first action or the second action comprises a presentation of an advertisement in relation to the first social media platform, the second social media platform, a third social media platform, or any combination thereof. (Wentz[0093] Still viewing FIG. 1, trusted computing, secure computing module 124 and/or protocols using secure computing module 124 may be used to establish a unique but anonymous electronic identity container to provide user control over online data. One of the current business models of web search engines, social media platforms and other internet businesses is to provide a service (search, social media, shopping platform) in exchange for the collection of user data which is then sold in near-instantaneous ad targeting exchanges to advertisers in a competitive bidding process, the process may include the targeting of ads and collection and storage of the browsing person's metadata. Advertisers and other websites may use cookies and related technologies to obtain and track additional metadata of the user (e.g. shopping and browsing trends), this data being used to further optimize targeting of advertisement for goods and services…In a non-limiting example, the identity container is an electronic record structure that includes one or more public attestation keys of the trusted hardware device as used in an anonymity preserving attestation scheme, e.g. in non-limiting example a direct anonymous attestation procedure as described in further detail below in reference to FIG. 4. A method using identity container may establish in non-limiting example one or more permissioned and revocable access levels to the user's metadata contained in the identity container. In a non-limiting example, the identity container may be stored on the trusted hardware device and may be provisioned to one or more intermediates by exchange of public/private keys. Similarly, identity container may enable user to allow advertisers, web services or other entities to bid on access to one or more permissioned access levels of the identity container and the contents enclosed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of Wentz to include advertisements in relation to social media platforms as doing so would optimize the facilitation of information regarding products and services to relevant users who have permitted those sources to advertise. (Wentz[0093])
However, Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi fail to teach or suggest:
-wherein the indication of the assertion comprises the first indication of the first identity of the first user on a first social media platform and a third indication of a third identity of the second user on a second social media platform. The examiner notes that Wentz discloses advertising on social media, but does not disclose the use of assertions specifically to verify a social media account.
Alternatively, Bivens teaches:
-wherein the indication of the assertion comprises the first indication of the first identity of the first user on a first social media platform and a second indication of a second identity of the second user on a second social media platform,([0012] Furthermore, it may be noted that while certain embodiments of this disclosure describe one or more operations in relation to the first user 110, these embodiments apply to any user (e.g., second user 112) connected to network 180…[0055] Server 120 may be configured to verify a metaverse data interaction 164 requested by the first user 110 based on the social media approval indicator 174 of the first user. For example, when the first user 110 (e.g. via the first avatar 114) requests to perform a metaverse data interaction 164 in the metaverse environment 102, server 120 compares the metaverse social approval indicator 174 of the first user 110 to a threshold social approval indicator. When the social approval indicator 174 of the first user 110 equals or exceeds the threshold social approval indicator, server 120 determines that the requested metaverse data interaction 164 is verified and allows the metaverse data interaction 164 to process without additional verification. The idea here is that a user having a high social approval indicator is a trusted person in social circles (e.g., across social media platforms) and is unlikely to perform a fraudulent or deceptive data interaction. Thus, a user with a high social approval indicator (e.g., higher than a threshold approval indicator) may be safely approved for newly requested data interactions.) This limitation requires the assertion to identify a social media user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of Wentz by adding Biven’s indication of the...identity of the user on a social media platform... Biven’s system not only validates their identity based on the credentials but performs additional checks to verify that the social media account is a legitimate approved account. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such a modification because it provides the benefit of increase security especially when implementing the combined system on social media accounts. (Bivens [0054])
Regarding Claim 21:
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, Astarabadi and Bivens teaches or suggests the method of claim 20
However, Ingram fails to teach:
-wherein the at least one of the first action or the second action comprises the presentation of the advertisement in relation to the first social media platform, the second social media platform, and the third social media platform
Furthermore, Wentz discloses:
-wherein the at least one of the first action or the second action comprises the presentation of the advertisement in relation to the first social media platform, the second social media platform, and the third social media platform.(Wentz[0093] Still viewing FIG. 1, trusted computing, secure computing module 124 and/or protocols using secure computing module 124 may be used to establish a unique but anonymous electronic identity container to provide user control over online data. One of the current business models of web search engines, social media platforms and other internet businesses is to provide a service (search, social media, shopping platform) in exchange for the collection of user data which is then sold in near-instantaneous ad targeting exchanges to advertisers in a competitive bidding process, the process may include the targeting of ads and collection and storage of the browsing person's metadata. Advertisers and other websites may use cookies and related technologies to obtain and track additional metadata of the user (e.g. shopping and browsing trends), this data being used to further optimize targeting of advertisement for goods and services…Advertisers and other websites may use cookies and related technologies to obtain and track additional metadata of the user (e.g. shopping and browsing trends), this data being used to further optimize targeting of advertisement for goods and services. In an embodiment, a trusted hardware device, such as without limitation a secure computing module 124, incorporated into or associated with a device utilized for browsing a web page, interaction with a social media network, and any other web browsing may be used to instantiate an identity container.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim requires the presentation of the advertisement to be in relation to three social media platforms. Wentz does not limit the amount of social media platforms that the advertisement can relate to, therefore, Wentz’s system teaches the limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ingram in view of Wentz to include advertisements in relation to social media platforms as doing so would optimize the facilitation of information regarding products and services to relevant users who have permitted those sources to advertise. (Wentz[0093])
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram(US 20240022561 A1) in view of Wentz (US 20220123948 A1), further in view of Khan (US 11139976 B2) as applied to claim 16, further in view of Astarabadi (US 20210314526 A1), further in view of Wells et al. (US 20240070234 A1 has prior filed provisional application 63/373,818) hereinafter Wells.
The combination of Ingram, Wentz, Khan, and Astarabadi teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16,
However, neither Ingram nor Wentz teach:
-wherein the indication of the identity of the first user includes an employee ID number for the first user, and wherein the presenting of the partial badge occurs when the first user arrives at a residence of the second user in the first virtual world.
Khan teaches: -wherein the indication of the identity of the first user includes an employee ID number for the first user, and (Khan [Col. 17 Lines 1-7] The license holder requests a download of their driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance document onto the license holder's PED and also enters the police officer's badge number and department onto the PHYSAP so that the documents also download onto the PED of the police officer who is requesting to see the documents. [Col. 18 Line 57- Col. 19 Line 4] ...The request having been issued by the law enforcement officer, in this example “OPP #7352”, based upon a request issued from a PED as depicted in third image 600C associated with the law enforcement officer which is routed to PHYSAP 155N and therein triggers provisioning of the request to the user's PED. The triggering request depicted in second image 600B wherein the user enters their user identity and password in respect of the request which is then communicated to the PHYSAPP 155N wherein the user's and officer's PEDs receive data relating to the user's driving license as depicted in fourth and fifth images 600D and 600E respectively.) A police badge number falls within the scope of “employee ID number” for the first user.
- the presenting of the partial badge occurs when the first user arrives (Khan [Col. 9 Lines 4-9] Subsequently, the user 165 (credential holder) uses their PhysID 160A, or second PhysID 160D at a storefront retailer/government office or kiosk/enterprise, depicted as first and second store front relying parties 170A and 170B respectively, to identify themselves in the presence of an agent of the store front relying party.) Khan teaches presenting of the partial badge when the user arrives at a storefront of a second user in the virtual world, but does not specifically teach a residence.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ingram by adding the teachings of Khan, specifically, the steps of presenting an obscured badge, receiving an authentication code, binding the badge with a security code to generate and present a modified badge that has the combined credentials. This combination would yield the predictable outcome of implementing Khan’s security system as is, into Ingram’s virtual environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine as it would provide the benefit of utilizing blockchain technology to increase security without compromising on privacy. (Khan [Abstract] Identity information stored securely on a mobile device and information usable by the requestor to verify the identity and the identity presenter are delivered at the request of the identity owner. The patent claims describe the use, sharing and verification of personal and financial identity data with the identity owner's permission. The Identity owner retain complete control over distribution of their information.)
However, neither Ingram, Wentz, Khan, nor Astarabadi still fails to teach:
-wherein the presenting of the partial badge occurs when the first user arrives at a residence of the second user in the first virtual world.
Alternatively, Wells discloses a blockchain encoding system that facilitates the access of users to both real-life and virtual environments. Wells teaches:
-wherein the presenting of the partial badge occurs when the first user arrives at a residence of the second user in the first virtual world.(Wells [0041] Smart contracts and/or digital assets such as NFTs may be deployed or hosted within a metaverse environment, and the software application may be configured to access such a metaverse environment so as to interact with said smart contracts and/or digital assets as described above. Metaverse environments in which the software application may be configured to operate include gaming environments such as massively multiplayer online games, immersive e-commerce environments, and social networking, among other possible virtual reality (VR) realizations. Digital assets, as such, may exist entirely within the metaverse environment, such as virtual clothing, or virtual fighting or sporting equipment to be used within an online game, or may digitally represent a corresponding real-world asset, such as actual apparel offered for sale within an immersive virtual mall. [0057] Such features further include the various permissions granted through the software application and being afforded to an authorized user (or claimant, or proprietor, or owner, as the case may be) who has possession of the asset NFT. In an example from the context of a smart home environment established hereinabove, an asset NFT for a real estate property including such a smart home may be minted by the software application with permissions to enter the home through a smart lock, permissions to use a vehicle charging station that may be present on the property, and other potential smart home features of the property.) Well’s teaches digital assets which would include homes in a virtual environment. Well’s [0041] has support from the provisional application specification paragraph [22], Well’s [0057] has support from provisional specification paragraph [0057].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ingram by adding the teachings of Wells, specifically by simply substituting Khan’s storefront of a second user, with Well’s home of a user to arrive at the predictable outcome of “wherein the presenting of the partial badge occurs when the first user arrives at a residence of the second user in the first virtual world.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would yield the benefit of securing one’s home using blockchain technology by properly allocating permissions to various users. (Wells [0042] The aforementioned software application thus connects NFTs of various assets, including inherently digital assets and tangible objects, with various permissions to be afforded to a user of such assets, and allows the disclosed technologies to interact seamlessly. Restated, the application thus bridges the gap between such autonomous technologies, while enabling an asset owner to allow any entity that the asset owner deems fit to temporarily—or permanently, depending on the contract—give access to permissions of the assets. The application may serve as a one-stop pass for multiple tangible objects or assets, including theme park tickets, concert tickets, casinos, vacation rentals, Airbnb®s, contractor/subcontractor work, heavy/industrial equipment, and aircraft/jet-sharing, etc. Moreover, digital assets and their corresponding ownership may be validated, stored, tracked, modified, and given permissions through the aforementioned software application. A few different example implementations are described below.) Well’s [0042] has support in provisional specification [23].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim objections to claim 24 has been withdrawn based on the amendments to claim 24.
In regards to arguments over claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner has fully considered all of the arguments throughout pages 9-12 in the applicant’s remarks, but the arguments are rendered moot in view of the updated rejection including Astarabadi. Support for the rejection has been provided under the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, as written in the present office action above.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that Ingram and Wentz are incapable of teaching “subsequent to the presenting of the modified badge to the second user,” the rejection above addresses that neither Ingram nor Wentz alone are relied upon to teach this limitation. Instead the combination, which includes Ingram, Wentz, Khan and Astarabadi are shown to teach in combination, the entire claim as amended. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, the applicant asserts that amended claim 1 is distinguishable from the applied art because “Khan fails to describe the presentation of the PhysID or the EleID in terms of “an indication of a second identity of the first user that is different from the indication of the identity of the first user, and wherein the second identity of the first user is included in the plurality of identities for the first user.” However, this argument is moot because the updated rejection includes Astarabadi who suggests these features, which in combination with the Ingram, Wentz, and Khan predictably yield the entire claim as recited. Please see the rejection above for the rationale behind the obvious combination, and the citation of the features taught by the combination. Therefore, claims 1, 16 and 19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because none of the arguments are persuasive. Therefore, claims 4-13, 17, 18, and 20-24 also remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In response to the applicant’s argument on page 11 that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in respect of claim 24 because of the direct citation to the Wells publication as opposed to the provisional application 63/373,818. The examiner acknowledges that while a copy of the provisional application was not provided by the examiner in the previous response, the examiner confirmed that the cited sections have full support in the provisional application. To show that the cited sections in the rejection are fully supported in the provisional, the paragraph number of the provisional specification has been provided in the rejection above. In response to the applicant’s allegations that the 103 rejection leaves the applicant having to speculate or guess where in the provisional the features are described, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the provisional application has full support for the exact paragraphs/features cited in the rejection. Because the applicant has substantially amended claim 16, by which claim 24 depends on, the new grounds of rejection (which now include Astarabadi, and which clarify the provisional support for Wells) is necessitated by the applicant’s amendment. Therefore, the final rejection is proper under MPEP 706.07(a) because “A dependent claim is treated as amended if the independent claim or any claim it references is amended because a dependent claim incorporates all the subject matter of the referenced claim(s).” Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not valid, and claim 24 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding arguments over claim rejections “Under 35 U.S.C. 101,” the examiner addresses the applicant’s remarks as follows.
On Page 12 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues that the Examiner appreciates that the claims are directed to significantly more, “as fairly indicated by the section 102/103.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, because the record clearly states that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The 102/103 discussion is not reasonably pertinent to the 101 rejection, as stated in MPEP 2106.05(1),
“Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).”
Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the section 101 treatment is contradicted by, and inconsistent with, the section 102/103, is not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument under B) in page 13, in which the applicant alleges that the examiner has failed to furnish actual proof/documentation to support the assertion that the claims recite an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner’s citation of the claim language, followed by the accompanying explanation in Step 2a Prong 1 of the rejection above satisfies the requirements in MPEP 2106.04(a). Specifically, “Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. The groupings of abstract ideas, and their relationship to the body of judicial precedent, are further discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.” The claims, in their plain language, literally recite “interactions” between individuals, and recite steps which manage such interactions. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the statement is merely an “unsubstantiated contention/conclusion on the part of the Examiner” is not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments under C), the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the examiner has satisfied the requirements under Step 2a Prong 2 and Step 2B to show that the claims are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments alleging the “absence of actual proof,” is not persuasive because the Examiner has satisfied all of the requirements in MPEP 2106.05.
In response to argument D in page 14, the applicant’s argument’s based on the examiner’s failure to demonstrate that the claim is directed to “well-understood, routine, or conventional activities” is not persuasive because the rejections do not rely on such an assertion, and the “well-understood, routine, or conventional nature.” MPEP 2106.07(a)(III) states, “At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.” Furthermore, the applicant further alleges that the claimed subject matter is directed to an improvement to technology based on the applicant’s assertion that the claims distinguish over the prior art. The examiner clarifies that the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, and as cited in MPEP 2106.05(a), “Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are neither relevant to 101 nor persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s assertions that 35 U.S.C. 101 requesting the examiner to specifically point out what condition stated in 35 U.S.C. 101 the Applicant has not complied with, “particularly in view of the broad mandate ‘any’ set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner asserts that the examiner has satisfied the MPEP requirements in performing a 101 analysis.
In response to the applicant’s arguments in section E), the examiner has fully considered the applicant’s arguments, but does not find any of the arguments in pages 14-16 to be relevant to the discussions over 101. The crux of the applicant’s arguments are against the MPEP itself, alleging that the examiner is “seemingly attempting to treat the MPEP as having such force and effect (of law)” and “the abstract idea exception is representative of an improper attempt to rewrite 35 U.S.C. 101 to say something it does not.” The MPEP outlines the current procedures by which the examiners are required or authorized to follow in appropriate cases in the normal examination of the patent application. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments, including but not limited to “constitution is the supreme law of the land,” and “Congress intended statutory subject matter to ‘include anything under the sun that is made by man” have been fully considered but are not relevant to the examination process. Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments over 35 U.S.C. 101 are persuasive and the claims remain ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/SANGEETA BAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626