DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on September 3, 2025 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended; Claim 3 has been canceled; and Claim 21 has been newly added.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objection has been withdrawn in light of the canceled claim.
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
Priority
The present application is a continuation of U.S. application 15/928,529 filed on March 22, 2018.
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, 2, and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-9 are directed to a method (i.e. a process), claims 10-16 are directed to a computer product (i.e. an article of manufacture), and claim 17-20 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A. 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1, 10, and 17, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 10, and 17, is
deploying a credential certification (provider) for the digital credential management;
receiving, by the credential certification (provider) from a credential issuer separate from the credential certification (provider), a new type of digital credential for issuing to users of the digital credential management, the new type of digital credential having not been previously certified by the credential certification (provider) for use within the digital credential management;
identifying a credential qualification associated with the new type of digital credential received from the credential issuer;
determining, by the credential certification (provider), a minimum skill threshold required to verify the credential qualification by mapping the credential qualification to a universal skills taxonomy for the digital credential management; (claims 1 and 10)
determining, by the credential certification (provider), a minimum skill threshold required to verify the credential qualification by evaluating statistical data associated with earners of the credential qualification;
determining, by the certification (provider), that the new type of digital credential meets the minimum skill threshold required to verify the credential qualification; and
responsive to determining, by the credential certification (provider), that the new type of digital credential meets the minimum skill threshold required to verify the credential qualification, allowing the credential issuer to issue the new type of digital credential to users of the digital credential management.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of providing credential certification.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (step [B]) and analyzing the information (steps [C]-[G]), that could be performed by a human, e.g., mentally or manually, using a pen and paper, without the need of a computer or any other machine. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally and alternatively, the same claim limitations above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of agreements in the form of contracts and following rules or instructions between credential certification provider/issuer and credential certification applicants. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the limitations recite a process of collecting information of credential applicants/users and determining minimum skill threshold required to verify credential qualification to issue credential to applicants/users (steps [A]-[G]). As described in the Applicant’s specification in paragraph [0002], many individuals and institutions (i.e. human) have been responsible for gathering information of physical certificates such as diplomas, transcripts, certification statement, and physical licenses, to verify the authenticity of an individual’s proficiencies or qualification, these evaluations have been actions performed by humans, before computers were available to support these tasks. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “digital credential management system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations comprising,” “deploying a credential certification server within a digital credential management system;” “by the credential certification server”, “from the credential certification server via a network,”
Claim 10: “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement operations comprising:” “deploying a credential certification server within a digital credential management system;” “by the credential certification server”, “from the credential certification server via a network,”
Claim 17: “A digital credential management system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations comprising:” “deploying a credential certification server within a digital credential management system;” “by the credential certification server”, “from the credential certification server via a network,”
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements – the use of “digital credential management system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations comprising,” and “credential certification server via a network,” to deploy, receive, identify, determine, and allow/issuance information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at para. [0027]-[0029] listing various generic servers and computer devices; Fig. 5 and Para. [0062]-[0075] describing generic and conventional computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[G] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[G] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for providing credential certification. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claims 1, 10, and 17. The claims further recite additional descriptive information regarding to the minimum skill threshold required to verify the credential qualification and the credential qualification associated with the new type of digital credential received. The additional descriptive information does not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. The further details of the claim limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technology environment. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter over Prior Art
The closest prior art found are:
Hardtke et al. (US 20140122355 A1) is directed to a computer-based method, and computer system, for matching candidates with job openings. The technology more particularly relates to methods of providing a candidate with a score for a particular job opening, where the score is derived from a comparison of features in the candidate's resume with job features in a description of the job opening, as well as use of external data gathered from other sources and based on information contained in the candidate's resume and/or in the description of the job opening. Particular features are weighted to take account of their significance in matching candidates to job openings in a statistical survey of such matching.
Hardtke teaches the deploying a credential certification server within the digital credential management system (para. [0053]);
identifying a credential qualification associated with the new type of digital credential received from the credential issuer; determining a minimum skill threshold required to verify the credential qualification by mapping the credential qualification to a universal skills taxonomy for the digital credential management system; determining that the new type of digital credential meets the minimum skill threshold required to verify the credential qualification (para. [0056], [0059], [0142], Table 1E, Table 1L and Table 2).
However, Hardtke does not teach the receiving of a new type of a new type of digital credential for issuing to users of the digital credential management system, the new type of digital credential having not been previously certified by the credential certification server for use within the digital credential management system, by the credential certification server from a credential issuer separate from the credential certification server via network; and credential certification server allowing the credential issuer to issue the new type of digital credential to users of the digital credential management system.
Ross et al. (US 20170357928 A1) is directed to a system and method for obtaining at least one model associating areas of competency with job roles and job responsibilities of personnel, the at least one model also associating the areas of competency with curricula of training exercises and content.
Ross teaches the deploying a credential certification server within the digital credential management system; identifying a credential qualification associated with the new type of digital credential received from the credential issuer; determining a minimum skill threshold required to verify the credential qualification (abstract and para. [0057]).
However, Ross does not teach the receiving of a new type of a new type of digital credential for issuing to users of the digital credential management system, the new type of digital credential having not been previously certified by the credential certification server for use within the digital credential management system, by the credential certification server from a credential issuer separate from the credential certification server via network; and credential certification server allowing the credential issuer to issue the new type of digital credential to users of the digital credential management system.
Maurya et al. (US 20170154307 A1) is directed to determining a value associated with each skill. The social networking system selects one or more skills the list of skills based on the determined value of each skill. For each selected skill, the social networking system identifies at least one educational opportunity associated with learning the selected skill. However, Maurya does not teach the receiving of a new type of a new type of digital credential for issuing to users of the digital credential management system, the new type of digital credential having not been previously certified by the credential certification server for use within the digital credential management system, by the credential certification server from a credential issuer separate from the credential certification server via network; and credential certification server allowing the credential issuer to issue the new type of digital credential to users of the digital credential management system.
Perreault (US 20110055100 A1) is directed to system and method for providing a comprehensive and integrated professional education and training platform, especially in the areas of tax, financial auditing and reporting, and planning and risk assessment. However, Perreault does not teach the receiving of a new type of a new type of digital credential for issuing to users of the digital credential management system, the new type of digital credential having not been previously certified by the credential certification server for use within the digital credential management system, by the credential certification server from a credential issuer separate from the credential certification server via network; and credential certification server allowing the credential issuer to issue the new type of digital credential to users of the digital credential management system.
Kurien (US 20140304181 A1) is directed to a system and method for determining that the badge identified by the user is compliant with the policy by determining that the badge complies with the policy identified by the user. Kurien teaches the authenticating of a bade by trustworthy verifier. However, Kurien does not teach the trustworthy verifier is a credential separate from the credential certification server to issue new type of digital credential to users from the verification performed by the credential certification server within the digital credential management system.
Pearson, “Open badges are unlocking the emerging jobs economy” published in 2013, pages 1-7 (provided in IDS of parent application 15/928,529 of 4/27/2018, and attached in file), teaching the concepts of using a digital credential such as an open badge including metadata that sets forth qualification, skills, and competencies of the receiver. However, Pearson does not teach the trustworthy verifier is a credential separate from the credential certification server to issue new type of digital credential to users from the verification performed by the credential certification server within the digital credential management system.
In sum, the combination of the above references does not explicitly teach the specific configuration of the limitation receiving, by the credential certification server from a credential issuer separate from the credential certification server via a network, a new type of digital credential for issuing to users of the digital credential management system, the new type of digital credential having not been previously certified by the credential certification server for use within the digital credential management system; and responsive to determining, by the certification server, that the new type of digital credential meets the minimum skill threshold required to verify the credential qualification, allowing the credential issuer to issue the new type of digital credential to users of the digital credential management system (i.e. in the particular manner it is claimed in the context of the whole claim is not disclosed, taught or suggested in the prior art(s)).
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are found to be allowable over the prior art of record.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor fairly and reasonably teach the independent claims 1, 10, and 17.
Examiner notes that while applicant has overcome the art of record, the application is not in condition for allowance, given the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
On pages 8-10 of the remarks, the Applicant asserts, the claimed invention recites an improvement in the technical field of digital credential management system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per para. [0002] and [0148] of the app. Specification states a need for publishing, verifying, and tracking of sets of technical skills and proficiencies for individual, however, that is not technological problem and there is no technological improvement reflected in the claims nor the specification.
That is, as reflected in Enfish and Mentone Solutions, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements (improvement of the technology or technical field), on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information), on the other. The alleged advantages that the appellant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities or any machinery/technology but instead relate to an alleged improvement in receiving and determining information for a desirable result, which a computer is used as a mere tool in its ordinary capacity, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims and specification do not concern or provide advance technological detail for how the system of the invention is able to deploy a credential certification server, identify credential qualification, determine new type of digital credential, verify credential qualification, and issue new type of digital credential to users, but rather, merely use/utilize a computer system to achieve the desirable result from generic computer functions, this do not reflect a technical improvement.
To further clarify, the Applicant reflected a business need/purpose of the abstract idea for the collecting of information and use the collected information to determine credential qualification for institution or employer. The computer and software, itself is merely used “applied” for the expected result of convenience, efficiency, and time/cost saving. The claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology of the computer functionalities other than by using the additional elements of the computer system, desired result can be produced without a doubt and concern to technological details for how it is done. That is, the computer system itself or specific technology is not improved in anyway other than being applied as a tool/instrument for the judicial exception (abstract idea).
(Page 8)
At Alice step one, we determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. In cases involving software, step one often “turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies [as] an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). “We have routinely held software claims patent eligible under Alice step one when they are directed to improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” Id. at 1307 (collecting cases).
(Page 11)
This case is nothing like the claims we held ineligible in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017). There, the claims recited a method of transmitting packets of information over a communications network comprising: converting information into streams of digital packets; routing the streams to users; controlling the routing; and monitoring the reception of packets by the users. Id. at 1334. We held the claims ineligible because they merely recited a series of abstract steps (“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating records”) using “result-based functional language” without the means for achieving any purported technological improvement. Id. at 1337. Here, there is no functional claiming, nor are there abstract steps.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Dohring et al. (US 20180268727 A1) is directed to systems, media, methods, and platforms for providing personalized mastery learning utilizing: a knowledge map; a plurality of learning activities, each learning activity comprising dynamically variable scaffolding, feedback, and content; a learning activity selection module selecting one or more learning activities for the learner; and a learning activity modification module dynamically varying one or more of the scaffolding, feedback, and content of at least one selected learning activity based on performance of the learner.
Wang et al. (US 20190087783 A1) is directed to a system for improving use of a social network. During operation, the system identifies skills that are trending within a social network based on usage features associated with usage of the skills in the social network. Next, the system matches one or more of the skills to member features for a member of the social network. The system then outputs a recommendation of the skill(s) to the member.
L. Voogt, L. Dow and S. Dobson, "Open badges: A best-practice framework," 2016 SAI Computing Conference (SAI), London, UK, 2016, pp. 796-804, doi: 10.1109/SAI.2016.7556070. The paper discusses Open Badges from educational and technological perspectives.
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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626