DETAILED ACTION
This final office action is in response to claims 5-8, 12-14, and 16-28 filed on 10/27/2025 for examination. Claims 5-8, 12-14, and 16-23 are being examined and are pending. Claims 24-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention (see hereinbelow).
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim(s) 24-28 is/are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Independent claims 5 and 12 do not require receiving a verifiable presentation from an entity, wherein the verifiable presentation is used to prove that the entity possesses one or more verifiable credentials with predetermined characteristics; obtaining a public key from a public decentralized identifier (DID) associated with a non- fungible token (NFT); […] and confirming that the verifiable presentation is valid based on the verification. Similarly, independent claim 24 does not require receiving a verifiable presentation that is signed using a private key of a public key infrastructure, wherein the private key is associated with a cryptocurrency address holding a non-fungible token (NFT); and obtaining a public key corresponding to the private key.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim(s) 24-28 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8, 12-13, 16-18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (CN113743921A; Hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 5, Hu teaches a method for verifying user credentials (abstract, [0163-265]), comprising:
receiving a verifiable presentation that is signed using a private key of a public key infrastructure ([0034], [0111-112], and [0150-156] – a verifiable presentation/statement is signed using a private key of the holder. The verifiable statement is received by the verification party. The private key has a corresponding public key <i.e., part of a public key infrastructure>), wherein the private key is associated with a cryptocurrency address holding a non-fungible token (NFT) ([0162-165], [0122], and [0133] – the holder’s private key is associated with the holder’s DID/blockchain address holding an asset/non-fungible token “NFT”);
obtaining a public key corresponding to the private key ([0037-038], [0047], [0157-160] – the DID document is queried and the holder’s public key is acquired and used to perform signature verification on the verifiable representation/presentation); and
verifying the verifiable presentation using the obtained public key, wherein the verifiable presentation is to prove possession of one or more verifiable credentials with predetermined characteristics ([0162-165], [0111-112], and [0142] – the verifiable presentation is verified using the public key of the holder obtained via the DID document. The verifiable presentation is verified to confirm the holder’s possession of both the verifiable credential and the entitlement/status to use it <i.e., predetermined characteristics>. E.g., the verifiable credential is combined with the digital signature of the holder to create the verifiable presentation).
Regarding claim 6, Hu teaches the method of claim 5, wherein an owner of the NFT assigns a public decentralized identifier (DID) to the NFT and registers the public DID on a public ledger ([0128-131] and [0110] – the DID document is deployed <i.e., registered> on a public blockchain ledger. The DID is associated with <i.e., assigned to> the NFT via a holder), the method further comprising: resolving the public DID of the NFT to a DID document ([0110], [0047], and [0158-159] – the DID is resolved into a DID document. The DID is associated with the NFT via the holder); and obtaining the public key from the DID document ([0110], [0047], [0158-159], and [0173-175] – the DID documents include the public key, and the public key is obtained by querying the identifier/identification document <i.e., DID document> for the holder).
Regarding claim 8, Hu teaches the method of claim 5, wherein; the cryptocurrency address is an Ethereum address ([0113] and [0164] – the blockchain used is an Ethereum blockchain <i.e., the address is an Ethereum address>).
Regarding claim 12, Hu teaches an apparatus for verifying user credentials (abstract, [0163-265]), comprising:
a processor configured to receive a verifiable presentation that is signed using a private key of a public key infrastructure ([0034], [0111-112], and [0150-156] – a verifiable presentation/statement is signed using a private key of the holder. The verifiable statement is received by the verification party. The private key has a corresponding public key <i.e., part of a public key infrastructure>), obtain a public key corresponding to the private key ([0037-038], [0047], [0157-160] – the DID document is queried and the holder’s public key is acquired and used to perform signature verification on the verifiable representation/presentation), and verify the verifiable presentation using the obtained public key ([0162-165], [0111-112], and [0142] – the verifiable presentation is verified using the public key of the holder obtained via the DID document), wherein the private key is associated with a cryptocurrency address holding a non-fungible token (NFT) ([0162-165], [0122], and [0133] – the holder’s private key is associated with the holder’s DID/blockchain address holding an asset/non-fungible token “NFT”), and
the verifiable presentation is to prove possession of one or more verifiable credentials with predetermined characteristics ([0162-165], [0111-112], and [0142] – the verifiable presentation is verified using the public key of the holder obtained via the DID document. The verifiable presentation is verified to confirm the holder’s possession of both the verifiable credential and the entitlement/status to use it <i.e., predetermined characteristics>. E.g., the verifiable credential is combined with the digital signature of the holder to create the verifiable presentation).
Regarding claim 13, Hu teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein; an owner of the NFT assigns a public decentralized identifier (DID) to the NFT and registers the public DID on a public ledger ([0128-131] and [0110] – the DID document is deployed <i.e., registered> on a public blockchain ledger. The DID is associated with <i.e., assigned to> the NFT via a holder), and the processor is configured to determine a DID document based on the public DID of the NFT and obtain the public key from the DID document ([0110], [0047], [0158-159], and [0173-175] – the DID documents include the public key, and the public key is obtained by querying the identifier/identification document <i.e., DID document> for the holder; [0037-038], [0047], [0157-160] – the DID document is queried and the holder’s public key is acquired and used to perform signature verification on the verifiable representation/presentation).
Regarding claim 16, Hu teaches the method of claim 5, wherein: the verifiable presentation is comprised of data synthesized from, but not containing, the one or more verifiable credentials such that the data is synthesized using zero-knowledge proofs ([0111-0112] – the verifiable presentation may be generated based on zero-knowledge proofs pertaining to the verifiable credential).
Regarding claim 17, Hu teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising: processing of the verifiable presentation to prove possession of the one or more verifiable credentials by cryptographically verifying a digital signature of the one or more verifiable credentials with the public key ([0162-165], [0142], and [0171-176] – the verifier performs signature verification using the public key obtained from the identifier/DID documents to verify the verifiable presentation. The verifiable presentation is verified to confirm the holder’s possession of both the verifiable credential and the entitlement/status to use it).
Regarding claim 18, Hu teaches the method of claim 5, wherein: the verifiable presentation is issued by the NFT or an owner of the NFT ([0111-112], [0034], and [0150-160] – the verifiable presentation is created/signed by the holder <i.e., NFT/owner of the NFT>), and the verifiable presentation is verified without reliance on third-party verifiable credentials ([0157-165], [0131], and [0177-178] – the verification is based on the holder’s public key/signature and confirming the holding status by querying the NFT contract and comparing the NFT address to Holder <i.e., not using third-party VCs>).
Regarding claim 20, Hu teaches the apparatus of claim 12,wherein: the verifiable presentation is comprised of data synthesized from, but not containing, the one or more verifiable credentials such that the data is synthesized using zero-knowledge proofs ([0111-0112] – the verifiable presentation may be generated based on zero-knowledge proofs pertaining to the verifiable credential).
Regarding claim 21, Hu teaches the apparatus of claim 12, the processor further configured to: process the verifiable presentation to prove possession of the one or more verifiable credentials by cryptographically verifying a digital signature of the one or more verifiable credentials with the public key ([0162-165], [0142], and [0171-176] – the verifier performs signature verification using the public key obtained from the identifier/DID documents to verify the verifiable presentation. The verifiable presentation is verified to confirm the holder’s possession of both the verifiable credential and the entitlement/status to use it).
Regarding claim 22, Hu teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein: the verifiable presentation is issued by the NFT or an owner of the NFT ([0111-112], [0034], and [0150-160] – the verifiable presentation is created/signed by the holder <i.e., NFT/owner of the NFT>), and the verifiable presentation is verified without reliance on third-party verifiable credentials ([0157-165], [0131], and [0177-178] – the verification is based on the holder’s public key/signature and confirming the holding status by querying the NFT contract and comparing the NFT address to Holder <i.e., not using third-party VCs>).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 14, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Eby et al. (US20230104103A1; Hereinafter “Eby”).
Regarding claim 7, Hu teaches the method of claim 6, wherein: the verifiable presentation is verified when the cryptocurrency address holding the NFT can be derived |from the DID information| ([0164] and [0141]when the NFT holder address matches the signer’s DID information the verifiable presentation may be verified). Yet, Hu fails to specifically disclose the verifiable presentation is verified when the cryptocurrency address holding the NFT can be derived from the public key.
However, Eby teaches a similar system wherein verifiable credentials are verified by recipients (see, e.g., Eby at [0022-024]), wherein the verifiable presentation is verified when the cryptocurrency address holding the NFT can be derived from the public key ([0034], [0016], and [0007] – cryptocurrency address is holding the NFT. The cryptocurrency address can be the public key of the NFT owner <i.e., can be derived from the public key>; [0045-048], and [0022-024] – a verifier obtains the public key/address from the custody account’s public DID. The verifier may verify a signature associated with the verifiable credential using the public key/address <i.e., if the public key/address are wrong, verification fails>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu with the teachings of Eby, wherein the verifiable presentation is verified when the cryptocurrency address holding the NFT can be derived from the public key, to securely ensure the holder is entitled to utilize the NFT/verifiable credential via the blockchain (see, e.g., Hu at [0164] and [0141]; with Eby at [0034], [0016], [0045-048], and [0022-024]).
Regarding claim 14, Hu teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the verifiable presentation is verified when the cryptocurrency address holding the NFT can be derived |from the DID information| ([0164] and [0141]when the NFT holder address matches the signer’s DID information the verifiable presentation may be verified). Yet, Hu fails to specifically disclose the verifiable presentation is verified when the cryptocurrency address holding the NFT can be derived from the public key.
However, Eby teaches a similar system wherein verifiable credentials are verified by recipients (see, e.g., Eby at [0022-024]), wherein the verifiable presentation is verified when the cryptocurrency address holding the NFT can be derived from the public key ([0034], [0016], and [0007] – cryptocurrency address is holding the NFT. The cryptocurrency address can be the public key of the NFT owner <i.e., can be derived from the public key>; [0045-048], and [0022-024] – a verifier obtains the public key/address from the custody account’s public DID. The verifier may verify a signature associated with the verifiable credential using the public key/address <i.e., if the public key/address are wrong, verification fails>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu with the teachings of Eby, wherein the verifiable presentation is verified when the cryptocurrency address holding the NFT can be derived from the public key, to securely ensure the holder is entitled to utilize the NFT/verifiable credential via the blockchain (see, e.g., Hu at [0164] and [0141]; with Eby at [0034], [0016], [0045-048], and [0022-024]).
Regarding claim 19, Hu teaches the method of claim 5. Yet, Hu appears to fail to specifically disclose further comprising: determining that a public decentralized identifier (DID) of the NFT is deprecated due to a transfer of the NFT to a new owner having a different public and private key pair.
However, Eby teaches a similar system wherein verifiable credentials are verified by recipients (see, e.g., Eby at [0022-024]), further comprising: determining that a public decentralized identifier (DID) of the NFT is deprecated due to a transfer of the NFT to a new owner having a different public and private key pair ([0050-053], [0018], and [0022] – when the NFT is transferred to a new owner any/all previous ownership claims are updated in the blockchain to show they are revoked. The new owner and the old owner are represented as owners in the blockchain using their DID documents, which are each associated with respective public and private key pairs <i.e., the old owner/key pair is deprecated for the NFT, and the new owner has a different key pair>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu with the teachings of Eby, further comprising: determining that a public decentralized identifier (DID) of the NFT is deprecated due to a transfer of the NFT to a new owner having a different public and private key pair, to ensure former owners cannot continue to exert control over the NFT/VCs (see, e.g., Eby at [0050-053], [0018], and [0022]).
Regarding claim 23, Hu teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Yet, Hu appears to fail to specifically disclose further comprising: determining that a public decentralized identifier (DID) of the NFT is deprecated due to a transfer of the NFT to a new owner having a different public and private key pair.
However, Eby teaches a similar system wherein verifiable credentials are verified by recipients (see, e.g., Eby at [0022-024]), further comprising: determining that a public decentralized identifier (DID) of the NFT is deprecated due to a transfer of the NFT to a new owner having a different public and private key pair ([0050-053], [0018], and [0022] – when the NFT is transferred to a new owner any/all previous ownership claims are updated in the blockchain to show they are revoked. The new owner and the old owner are represented as owners in the blockchain using their DID documents, which are each associated with respective public and private key pairs <i.e., the old owner/key pair is deprecated for the NFT, and the new owner has a different key pair>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu with the teachings of Eby, further comprising: determining that a public decentralized identifier (DID) of the NFT is deprecated due to a transfer of the NFT to a new owner having a different public and private key pair, to ensure former owners cannot continue to exert control over the NFT/VCs (see, e.g., Eby at [0050-053], [0018], and [0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Suk (US20230145439) teaches a system for providing real asset authentication via DIDs and NFTs, wherein verifiable credentials are used for authentication (see, e.g., Suk at abstract, ([0070-071]). Hernandez et al. (NPL: “SSI Essentials: What are Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) & Verifiable Credentials (VSs)?”, November 14, 2021) teaches using verifiable credentials, decentralized identifiers, and verifiable presentations to verify claims (see, e.g., Hernandez at pgs. 5-8). Brunner et al. (NPL: “DID and VC: Untangling Decentralized Identifiers and Verifiable Credentials for the Web of Trust”; March 2021) teaches a standard for the generation and verification of verifiable credentials, as well as verifiable credential usage with decentralized identifiers (see, e.g., Brunner at abstract, pgs. 62-63).
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 JOSHUA RAYMOND WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-4365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, & Alternate Fridays.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 5712723787. 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.
/J.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2438 /TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights