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
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-20 filed on 09/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21-40 have been examined.
Claim Objection
Claims 21, 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, “(b) a document management system enabling a plurality of managerial actions for a plurality of document types, wherein document types processed by the system have at least one identifier for data reconciliation” should be “(b) a document management system enabling a plurality of managerial actions for a plurality of document types, wherein document types processed by the document management system have at least one identifier for data reconciliation”. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “(b) a document management system enabling a plurality of managerial actions for a plurality of document types, wherein document types processed by the document management system have at least one identifier for data reconciliation”.
In claim 21, “(g) a wallet system enabling at least managerial actions, wherein data transmitted to and from the wallet is routed by at least one identifier” should be “(g) a wallet system enabling at least managerial actions, wherein data transmitted to and from the wallet system is routed by at least one identifier”. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “(g) a wallet system enabling at least managerial actions, wherein data transmitted to and from the wallet system is routed by at least one identifier”.
In claim 31, “The system of Claim 29, wherein the wallet system supports traditional, digital, and blockchain transactions.” Claim 29, which claim 31 depends upon, does not recite “a wallet system.” However, claim 30 recites “wherein a wallet system…” For purposes of examination, claim 31 is being interpreted as “The system of Claim 30 [[29], wherein the wallet system…”
In claim 38, “The system of Claim 34, wherein the offline system synchronizes....” Claim 34, which claim 34 depends upon, recites “(c) a document management system…synchronizing across online and offline systems…” For purposes of examination, claim 37 is being interpreted as “The system of Claim 34, wherein the online and offline systems synchronize[[s]]…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 21-27 are directed to a system (‘machine’), claims 28-33 are directed to a system (‘machine’), claims 34-40 are directed to a system (‘machine’). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 21
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of transaction processing with onboarding and client lifecycle data management. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
(a) an identity management system employing at least machine learning models or rule-based algorithms for processing and verifying a plurality of identification characteristics and data, generating classifications, wherein each user is associated with at least one identifier, utilizing identification characteristics and data as an authentication mechanism;
(b) a document management system enabling a plurality of managerial actions for a plurality of document types, wherein document types processed by the system have at least one identifier for data reconciliation;
(c) a transaction management system utilizing at least machine learning models or rule-based algorithms to facilitate a plurality of transaction management actions, creating transaction classifications, wherein transaction data is associated with users via at least one identifier;
(d) a communication system facilitating secure encrypted transmission of data between a plurality of systems;
(e) an account management system enabling a plurality of managerial actions across system components, utilizing at least one identifier to synchronize and reconcile data;
(f) programmable contracts enabling execution for a plurality of on-chain and off-chain identity, document, and transaction processes, wherein data from programmable contracts is utilized as an identifier for on-chain and/or off-chain systems;
(g) a wallet system enabling at least managerial actions, wherein data transmitted to and from the wallet is routed by at least one identifier; and
(h) a storage system facilitating a plurality of data management actions between a plurality of centralized and/or decentralized systems, automatically creating audit trails and reconciling data.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “an identity management system,” “machine learning models,” “a document management system,” “a transaction management system,” “a communication system,” “a plurality of systems,” “an account management system,” “system components,” “programmable contracts,” “on-chain and/or off-chain systems,” “a wallet system,” “a storage system,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Claim 28
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of transaction processing with onboarding and client lifecycle data management. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
(a) an identity management system employing at least machine learning models or rule-based algorithms for authenticating identification characteristics for a plurality of data objects and records based on criteria governed by decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), wherein decentralized oracles verify and validate identification characteristics, associating users with at least one unique identifier throughout the client lifecycle, utilizing identification characteristics as an access mechanism for on-chain and/or off-chain systems;
(b) a document management system enabling data transfers, signatures, processing, supporting, creating, sending, receiving, storing, and tracking of documents, wherein data is stored via distributed and/or non-distributed storage systems, leveraging at least one unique identifier for data reconciliations;
(c) a transaction management system utilizing at least machine learning models or rule-based algorithms for facilitating monitoring, screening, recording, and reporting on-chain and/or off-chain transactions, synchronizing transactions utilizing at least one unique identifier;
(d) programmable contracts and/or decentralized identifiers enabling authentication and execution of identity, document, and transaction processes across on-chain and/or off-chain systems; and
(e) a storage system enabling automatic reconciliation of identity, documents, and transactions, maintaining compatibility with a plurality of data objects and/or records, wherein distributed ledger technology, such as blockchain or decentralized clouds, enables at least one immutable audit trail utilizing oracles for data synchronization.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “an identity management system,” “machine learning models,” “on-chain and/or off-chain systems,” “a document management system,” “distributed an/or non-distributed storage systems,” “a transaction management system,” “programmable contracts,” “a storage system,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Claim 34
Step 2A Prong One
The claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of transaction processing with onboarding and client lifecycle data management. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
(a) a communication system facilitating secure encrypted transmission of objects and records between a plurality of systems, wherein the communication system supports near-field communication (NFC) for proximate data exchange and far-field communication for remote data transmission, leveraging encrypting to ensure secure and efficient transmission;
(b) an identity management system utilizing at least machine learning models or rule-based algorithms for facilitating, verification and validation of identification data objects and/or records, supporting online and offline modes for data transmission;
(c) a document management system enabling a plurality of functionality, synchronizing across online and offline systems, wherein at least machine learning or rule-based systems are employed for at least document classification and/or contextual metadata analysis on data objects and/or records;
(d) a transaction management system executing a plurality of transaction actions, utilizing at least machine learning or rule-based systems for transaction classifications, evaluating transactions, dynamically linking card transactions to identities, adapting assessments based on at least machine learning or rule-based algorithm systems; and
(e) a storage system facilitating the reconciliation of online and/or offline data objects and/or records, utilizing encryption for secure processing and storage, enabling synchronization across centralized and/or decentralized storage systems.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a communication system,” “a plurality of systems,” “near-field communication (NFC),” far-field communication,” “an identity management system,” “machine learning models,” “a document management system,” “on-chain and off-chain systems,” “a transaction management system,” “machine learning or rule-based systems,” “a storage system,” “centralized and/or decentralized storage systems,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 22-27, 29-33, 35-40
Claim 22 recites further details of the communication system. Claim 24 recites further details of the wallet system. Claim 25 recites further details of the storage system. Claim 27 recites further details of the system. Claim 29 recites characteristics of the communication system. Claim 30 recites further details of the wallet system. Claim 32 recites further details of the programmable contracts. Claim 33 recites further details of the system. Claim 35 recites further details of the communication systems. Claim 36 recites further details of the verification methods. Claim 37 recites further details of the communication systems. Claim 38 recites further details of the offline system. Claim 39 recites further details of the system. Claim 40 recites further details of the system Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with onboarding and client lifecycle data management. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 23 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the wallet system communicates with a plurality of on-chain and off-chain systems to facilitate identity, document, and transaction processes.
As above, he claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with onboarding and client lifecycle data management. The additional non-underlined element of “a plurality of on-chain and off-chain systems,” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional non-underlined element fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 26 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the storage system interacts with at least one smart contract to coordinate a plurality of data operations across centralized and/or decentralized systems.
As above, he claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with onboarding and client lifecycle data management. The additional non-underlined element of “the storage system interacts with at least one smart contract,” “centralized and/or decentralized systems” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional non-underlined element fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“(a) an identity management system employing…” “(b) a document management system enabling…” “(c) a transaction management system utilizing…” “(d) a communication system facilitating…” “(e) an account management system facilitating…” “(g) a wallet system enabling…” “(h) a storage system facilitating…” in claim 21,
“(a) an identity management system employing…” “(b) a document management system enabling…” “(c) a transaction management system utilizing…” “(e) a storage system enabling…” in claim 28
“(a) a communication system facilitating…” “(b) an identity management system utilizing…” “(c) a document management system enabling…” “(d) a transaction management system executing…” “(e) a storage system facilitating…” in claim 34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites a system comprising “(a) an identity management system employing…” “(b) a document management system enabling…” “(c) a transaction management system utilizing…” “(d) a communication system facilitating…” “(e) an account management system facilitating…” “(g) a wallet system enabling…” “(h) a storage system facilitating…”, claim 28 reciting a system comprising “(a) an identity management system employing…” “(b) a document management system enabling…” “(c) a transaction management system utilizing…” “(e) a storage system enabling…”, claim 34 reciting “(a) a communication system facilitating…” “(b) an identity management system utilizing…” “(c) a document management system enabling…” “(d) a transaction management system executing…” “(e) a storage system facilitating…”
The claim limitations above do not use the word “means” but are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use generic placeholders, as recited in the presentative claim 21, “an identity management system”, “a document management system”, “a transaction management system,” “a communication system”, “an account management system”, “programmable contracts”, “a wallet system”, “a storage system”, that are coupled with functional languages without reciting sufficient structures to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers.
Claim limitations, recited in the representative claim 21, “(a) an identity management system employing…” “(b) a document management system enabling…” “(c) a transaction management system utilizing…” “(d) a communication system facilitating…” “(e) an account management system facilitating…” “(g) a wallet system enabling…” “(h) a storage system facilitating…”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0007] of the specification (PGPub US20230316261A1) describes the system comprising an identity management system, a documentation management system, a transaction management system, a communication system, an account management system, an account management, a wallet system and a storage system. However, the specification does not disclose any structure of the claimed components (that performs the recited functions (i.e. “(a) an identity management system employing…” “(b) a document management system enabling…” “(c) a transaction management system utilizing…” “(d) a communication system facilitating…” “(e) an account management system facilitating…” “(g) a wallet system enabling…” “(h) a storage system facilitating…”). Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 16-30 are also rejected as each depends on claim 15.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claim 33 recites “wherein the system employs…for the dynamic classification…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, “the dynamic classification.”
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 21, 23, 25-26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madisetti et al. (US 2018/0288022A1 (“Madisetti ‘022”)) in view of Madisetti et al. (US 2022/0114142A1 (“Madisetti ‘142”)) in further view of Phillipps et al. (US 9,646,262B2 (“Phillipps”)).
Per Claim 21: Madisetti ‘022 discloses a system comprising:
(a) an identity management system employing at least [module] processing and verifying a plurality of identification characteristics and data, generating classifications, wherein each user is associated with at least one identifier, utilizing identification characteristics and data as an authentication mechanism; (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, items 906/920, Fig. 14; ¶¶42, 94, 96)…
(c) a transaction management system utilizing at least [module] to facilitate a plurality of transaction management actions, creating transaction classifications, wherein transaction data is associated with users via at least one identifier; (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, Fig. 14; ¶¶42-43, 96)
(d) a communication system facilitating secure encrypted transmission of data between a plurality of systems; (Madisetti ‘022: ¶¶6, 20, 42, 94)
(e) an account management system enabling a plurality of managerial actions across system components, utilizing at least one identifier to synchronize and reconcile data; (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, item 934, Fig. 14; ¶¶42-43, 94)
(f) programmable contracts enabling execution for a plurality of on-chain and off-chain identity, document, and transaction processes, wherein data from programmable contracts is utilized as an identifier for on-chain and/or off-chain systems; (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 2, Fig. 4; ¶¶27, 42, 44, 53, 96)
(g) a wallet system enabling at least managerial actions, wherein data transmitted to and from the wallet is routed by at least one identifier; and (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 1, Fig. 13, Fig. 14; ¶¶20, 42-43, 96)
(h) a storage system facilitating a plurality of data management actions between a plurality of centralized and/or decentralized systems, automatically creating audit trails and reconciling data. (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, item 930; ¶¶42, 94)
Madisetti ‘022 does not explicitly disclose:
(b) a document management system enabling a plurality of managerial actions for a plurality of document types, wherein document types processed by the system have at least one identifier for data reconciliation;
Madisetti ‘142: discloses:
(b) a document management system enabling a plurality of managerial actions for a plurality of document types, wherein document types processed by the system have at least one identifier for data reconciliation; (Madisetti ‘142: Fig. 1, item 118, Fig. 2, item 212/214, Fig. 24/25; ¶¶72, 104-105)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 to incorporate the teachings of a document management system, as disclosed in Madisetti ‘142:, for secure access (Madisetti ‘142: ¶73).
Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 does not explicitly disclose machine learning models.
Phillipps discloses machine learning models (Fig. 2, item 102; 5:62-6:42, 28:66-29:12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 to incorporate the teachings of machine learning modules, as disclosed in Phillipps, to automate and make business intelligence more efficient and effective (Phillipps: 14:19:20).
Per Claim 28: Madisetti ‘022 discloses a system comprising:
(a) an identity management system employing at least [module] for authenticating identification characteristics for a plurality of data objects and records based on criteria governed by decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), wherein decentralized oracles verify and validate identification characteristics, associating users with at least one unique identifier throughout the client lifecycle, utilizing identification characteristics as an access mechanism for on-chain and/or off-chain systems; (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 1, Fig. 13, items 906/920, Fig. 14; ¶¶42-43, 94, 96)…
(c) a transaction management system utilizing at least [module] for facilitating monitoring, screening, recording, and reporting on-chain and/or off-chain transactions, synchronizing transactions utilizing at least one unique identifier; (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, Fig. 14; ¶¶42-43, 96)
(d) programmable contracts and/or decentralized identifiers enabling authentication and execution of identity, document, and transaction processes across on-chain and/or off-chain systems; and (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 2, Fig. 4; ¶¶27, 42, 44, 53, 96)
(e) a storage system enabling automatic reconciliation of identity, documents, and transactions, maintaining compatibility with a plurality of data objects and/or records, wherein distributed ledger technology, such as blockchain or decentralized clouds, enables at least one immutable audit trail utilizing oracles for data synchronization. (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, item 930; ¶¶42, 94)
Madisetti ‘022 does not explicitly disclose:
(b) a document management system enabling data transfers, signatures, processing, supporting, creating, sending, receiving, storing, and tracking of documents, wherein data is stored via distributed and/or non-distributed storage systems, leveraging at least one unique identifier for data reconciliations;
Madisetti ‘142 discloses:
(b) a document management system enabling data transfers, signatures, processing, supporting, creating, sending, receiving, storing, and tracking of documents, wherein data is stored via distributed and/or non-distributed storage systems, leveraging at least one unique identifier for data reconciliations; (Madisetti ‘142: Fig. 1, item 118, Fig. 2, item 212/214, Fig. 24/25; ¶¶72, 104-105)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 to incorporate the teachings of a document management system, as disclosed in Madisetti ‘142:, for secure access (Madisetti ‘142: ¶73).
Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 does not explicitly disclose machine learning models.
Phillipps discloses machine learning models (Phillipps: Fig. 2, item 102; 5:62-6:42, 28:66-29:12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 to incorporate the teachings of machine learning modules, as disclosed in Phillipps to automate and make business intelligence more efficient and effective (Phillipps: 14:19:20).
Per Claims 23: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 21.
Madisetti ‘022discloses:
wherein the wallet system communicates with a plurality of on-chain and off-chain systems to facilitate identity, document, and transaction processes. (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 1, Fig. 13, Fig. 14; ¶¶20, 42-43, 96)
Per Claims 25: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 21.
Madisetti ‘022: discloses:
wherein the storage system implements validation and/or verification methods, reconciling data across systems. (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, item 930; ¶¶42, 94)
Per Claims 26: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 21.
Madisetti ‘022discloses:
wherein the storage system interacts with at least one smart contract to coordinate a plurality of data operations across centralized and/or decentralized systems. (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, item 930; ¶¶42, 94, 96)
Per Claims 27: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 21.
Madisetti ‘022 discloses:
wherein the system utilizes at least identity and document management systems. (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13; ¶¶94, 96)
Per Claims 29: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 28.
Madisetti ‘022 discloses:
wherein the communication system includes data exchange and/or content transmission methods, enabling at least encrypted communication for disseminating identity, documents, and transactions between users, systems and oracle networks. (Madisetti ‘022: ¶¶6, 20, 42, 45, 94)
Per Claims 30: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 28.
Madisette ‘022 discloses:
wherein a wallet system is integrated for managing on-chain and/or off-chain identities, documents, and transactions. (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 1, Fig. 13, Fig. 14; ¶¶20, 42-43, 96)
Per Claims 31: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 29.
Madisette ‘022 discloses:
wherein the wallet system supports traditional, digital, and blockchain transactions. (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 1, Fig. 13, Fig. 14; ¶¶20, 42-43, 96)
Per Claims 33: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 28.
Madisette ‘022 discloses:
wherein the system employs at least [module] and DAO-governed protocols for the dynamic classification of identities, documents, and transactions. (Madisette ‘022: Fig. 14; ¶96)
Phillipps discloses machine learning models (Fig. 2, item 102; 5:62-6:42, 28:66-29:12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 and Phillipps to incorporate the teachings of machine learning modules, as disclosed in Phillipps, to automate and make business intelligence more efficient and effective (Phillipps: 14:19:20).
Claims 22, 24, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 and Phillippsas applied to claims 21 and 28 further in view of Shultz et al. (US 9,391,986B2 9”Shultz”)).
Per Claims 22: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 21.
Madisette ‘022 discloses:
wherein the communication system implements at least secure proximity-based and/or far-field communication methods to enable offline transmission of identity, documents, and transactions. (Madisetti ‘022: ¶¶6, 20, 42, 94)
Madisetti ‘022 does not explicitly disclose proximate-based communication.
Shultz discloses proximate-based communication for data exchange (Shultz: 4:58-5:4, 6:50-7:4, 23:23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 and Phillipps to incorporate the teachings of proximate-based communication for data exchange, as disclosed in Shultz, for providing security and privacy acapability for identity verification (Shultz: 2:33-34).
Per Claims 24: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 21.
Madisette ‘022 discloses:
wherein the wallet system supports at least [communication]
Madisetti ‘022 does not explicitly disclose NFC.
Shultz discloses a near-field communication (NFC) for proximate data exchange (Shultz: 4:58-5:4, 6:50-7:4, 23:23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 and Phillipps to incorporate the teachings of near-field communication for proximate data exchange, as disclosed in Shultz, for providing security and privacy acapability for identity verification (Shultz: 2:33-34).
Per Claims 32: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142 and Phillipps all the limitations of claim 28.
Madisette ‘022 discloses:
wherein programmable contracts and/or decentralized identifiers integrate with [communication]
Madisetti ‘022 does not explicitly disclose NFC.
Shultz discloses a near-field communication (NFC) (Shultz: 4:58-5:4, 6:50-7:4, 23:23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 and Phillipps to incorporate the teachings of near-field communication for proximate data exchange, as disclosed in Shultz, for providing security and privacy acapability for identity verification (Shultz: 2:33-34).
Claims 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 in further view of Phillipps and Shultz.
Per Claim 34: Madisetti ‘022: discloses a system comprising:
(a) a communication system facilitating secure encrypted transmission of objects and records between a plurality of systems, wherein the communication system supports [communication] and far-field communication for remote data transmission, leveraging encrypting to ensure secure and efficient transmission; (Madisetti ‘022: ¶¶6, 20, 42, 45, 94)
(b) an identity management system utilizing at least [module] for facilitating, verification and validation of identification data objects and/or records, supporting online and offline modes for data transmission; (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, items 906/920, Fig. 14; ¶¶42, 94, 96)…
(d) a transaction management system executing a plurality of transaction actions, utilizing at least [module] machine learning models or rule-based algorithms for transaction classifications, evaluating transactions, dynamically linking card transactions to identities, adapting assessments based on at least machine learning or rule-based algorithm systems; and (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, Fig. 14; ¶¶42-43, 96)
(e) a storage system facilitating the reconciliation of online and/or offline data objects and/or records, utilizing encryption for secure processing and storage, enabling synchronization across centralized and/or decentralized storage systems. (Madisetti ‘022: Fig. 13, item 930; ¶¶42, 94)
Madisetti ‘022 does not explicitly disclose:
(c) a document management system enabling a plurality of functionality, synchronizing across online and offline systems, wherein at least machine learning or rule-based systems are employed for at least document classification and/or contextual metadata analysis on data objects and/or records;
Madisetti ‘022 does not explicitly disclose:
(c) a document management system enabling a plurality of functionality, synchronizing across online and offline systems, wherein at least machine learning or rule-based systems are employed for at least document classification and/or contextual metadata analysis on data objects and/or records; (Madisetti ‘142: Fig. 1, item 118, Fig. 2, item 212/214, Fig. 24/25; ¶¶72, 84, 104-105)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 to incorporate the teachings of a document management system, as disclosed in Madisetti ‘142:, for secure access (Madisetti ‘142: ¶73).
Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 does not explicitly disclose machine learning models.
Phillipps discloses machine learning models (Fig. 2, item 102; 5:62-6:42, 28:66-29:12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 to incorporate the teachings of machine learning modules, as disclosed in Phillipps, to automate and make business intelligence more efficient and effective (Phillipps: 14:19:20).
Madisetti ‘022 does not explicitly disclose a near-field communication (NFC) for proximate data exchange.
Shultz discloses a near-field communication (NFC) for proximate data exchange (Shultz: 4:58-5:4, 6:50-7:4, 23:23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Madisetti ‘022 in view of Madisetti ‘142 and Phillipps to incorporate the teachings of near-field communication for proximate data exchange, as disclosed in Shultz, for providing security and privacy acapability for identity verification (Shultz: 2:33-34).
Per Claims 35: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142, Phillipps and Shultz all the limitations of claim 34.
Madisette ‘022 discloses:
wherein the communication system integrates data exchange and/or content transmission methods, enabling real-time encrypted communication for disseminating data objects and/or records between users and systems. (Madisetti ‘022: ¶¶6, 20, 42, 94)
Per Claims 36: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142, Phillipps and Shultz all the limitations of claim 34.
Madisette ‘022 discloses:
wherein verification methods are optimized for reducing data size to facilitate efficient storage and transmission in communication systems. (Madisette ‘022: Fig. 13; ¶¶94-96)
Per Claims 37: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142, Phillipps and Shultz all the limitations of claim 34.
Madisette ‘022 discloses:
wherein the communication system supports multiplexed encrypted data transmission for simultaneous transmission of multiple data objects and/or record streams. (Madisetti ‘022: ¶¶6, 20, 42, 94)
Per Claims 38: Madisette ‘022 in view of Madisette ‘142, Phillipps and Shultz all the limitations of claim 34.
Madisette ‘142 discloses:
wherein the offline system synchronizes data with centralized and/or decentralized databases through reconciliation processes, utilizing advanced computational technique