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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 6-8, The Rejection of Claims Under 101, filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered.
Examiner Response to The Rejection of Claims Under 101:
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14-15 remain rejected under 101.
Applicant argues, page 6, 1. The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea.
Bullet Point 1 - Detecting the presence of a user device within a geographic location as specific technological interactions and improvements. This limitation is from Claim 1, and Examiner disagrees as being specific technological interactions and improvement as this step is a pre-solution to locating users in order to ask users for data for a service or an incentive.
Bullet Point 2 – Providing incentives for sharing user data as specific technological interactions and improvements. This limitation is from Claim 1, and Examiner disagrees as being specific technological interactions and improvement because this is related to human activity of sharing data for an incentive.
Bullet Point 3 – Permitting user selection of data to be shared as specific technological interactions and improvements. This limitation is from Claim 1, and Examiner disagrees as being specific technological interactions and improvement because this is relating of organizing human activity to allow user to share a certain amount of data, such as filling out a survey partially instead of answering all the questions.
Bullet Point 4 – (Examiner Skipping, see this NFOA, page 4, paragraph 4.)
Bullet Point 5 – Providing services or benefits as a function of the data shared as specific technological interactions and improvements. This limitation is from Claim 1, and Examiner disagrees as being specific technological interactions and improvement because this is relating of organizing human activity to incentivize users to share more data for a bigger reward.
Bullet Point 6 – Implementing these steps using specific hardware components… as specific technological interactions and improvements. This limitation is from Claim 1, and Examiner disagrees as being specific technological interactions and improvement because implementing these are additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Instead of having a human to take survey questions to provide an incentive, it is well known for generic computer devices (i.e. communications interface, processing circuitry, sensory circuitry) being used to detect the user, ask for data, and provide an incentive.
For Bullet Point 4, Upon further review of the claims, the examiner is withdrawing Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 for claims 4, 13, and 17-20. The combination of zero-knowledge proof and elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) recite significantly more of aggregation of data with cryptographic assurances of anonymity. Claim 1 can overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection by incorporating claims 2-4 and Claim 12 can overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection by incorporating claim 13. A zero-knowledge proof by itself is not sufficient as by the definition a zero-knowledge proof is showing proof of having the data without revealing the actual data. See this office action, Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, page 22 of claim 3.
Applicant argues the claims recite Significantly more than an abstract idea, see applicant arguments filled 01/26/2026, page 7.
Applicant argues, page 7, 3. The claims recite Significantly more than an abstract idea.
Bullet Point 7 – The use of incentives tied to a specific geographical locations and benefits. This limitation is from Claim 1, and Examiner disagrees as this is a significantly more but relates to organizing human activity and having the incentive at a certain location.
Bullet Point 8 – User selection and control over data sharing, see page 3, Bullet Point 3, of this office action, as it’s the same explanation.
Bullet Point 9 – Aggregation of data with cryptographic assurances of anonymity, see page 3, Bullet Point 4, and page 4, paragraph 4.
Bullet Point 10 – Provision of services or benefits as a function of the data shared, see page 3, Bullet Point 5.
Bullet Point 11 – Implementation using specific hardware components…, see page 4, Bullet point 6.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, The Rejection of Claims Under § 102, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 17 has been withdrawn. However, upon further review, VENKATESAN and Chatzigiannakis discloses the said limitation. The office action is non-final.
Applicant’s argument, see page 9-10, 2. Claim 20 – Input Circuitry and User Response, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to claim 17 have been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 9-10, 2. Claim 20 – Input Circuitry and User Response, Cronin):
Applicant argues Cronin does not disclose “a motion or gesture” however examiner respectfully disagrees. The input circuitry as disclosed in claim 20 can be a touch, and Cronin discloses a touchscreen with user selection in Fig.8 (Cronin, paragraph [0056], Fig.8, “"If a user selects “Yes” soft button 816, base software 224 will cause data exchange software 226 to send a user's personal health parameter data associated with requested health parameter type 808, along with any set flags (as described above with reference to FIG. 5) and in accordance with any set rules (as described above with reference to FIG. 4)."”). A broadest reasonable interpretation of “a motion” can be read as either swiping, pinching, tapping, and in this case the user needs to tap the screen to accept of data exchange.
Furthermore, Cronin discloses an audio capturing device to also facilitate voice commands.
Examiner notes upon review of claim 20, line 2, when the input circuitry includes “an audio capturing device,” it is unclear how the audio capturing device is able to respond to “a motion or a gesture of the user.”
Applicant's arguments, pages 12-14, Response to Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Cronin, Jones, Stein, Dominguez, Grigg), filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 12, 2. Analysis of the Cited References, Cronin):
Cronin discloses “Aggregating user data from multiple devices (Cronin, paragraph 73, Fig.11) as the data exchange network polls for wearable device. Stein discloses the aggregating user data with other user data to generate anonymous set of user data (Stein, pars.44;65;74). Also claim 1 does not explicitly state “Aggregating user data from multiple devices” claim 1 is more directly to an individual user and their data is combined with other user data in a database.
Cronin was not relied on “Providing a service at a geographical location as a function of the selection of user data willing to be shared.” Jones teaches increasing the benefit based on the amount of user data provided (Jones, par.11-12). Therefore, with combination with other references teach the said limitation.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 12-13, 2. Analysis of the Cited References, Jones):
Examiner respectfully disagrees with “Jones focuses on user-directed sharing of personal data with entities, not on aggregation of data from multiple users to generate an anonymous set.” The teaching of jones of having to collect “personal” data with entities was not relied in Jones, examiner only relied Jones on increasing the benefit based on the amount of user data provided (Jones, par.11-12). Stein discloses aggregating user data with other user data (Stein, par.44;65;74). Cronin and Stein teach “Aggregating user data from multiple devices” all the claim states are the individual user data is collected with other user data. Stein already implies aggregating from multiple user (Stein par.44, Fig.1:144, “…which receives consumer data 144 from consumers via the consumer computing devices 20…”).
Jones was not relied on “The benefits are not necessarily tied to a geographical location or to a service provided at that location.” Dominguez discloses providing a service tied to a geographic location (Dominguez, par.70). Gregg discloses providing a benefit tied to a geographical location (Gregg, par.52). Jones is not required to teach the service or the benefit need to happen at a specific location, but the combination of the Cronin, Dominguez, Stein, and Grigg with Jones disclose the service can be tied to a geographical location.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with “There is no disclosure of providing a service as a function of the amount or type of data shared.” Jones is used with combination with Dominguez, and in combination teach the said limitation. Also, Dominguez discloses based on the data received, a service will be provided (Dominguez, par.57;70) and (Grigg, par.52), and therefore, when combining with Jones, the more data the user provides, the more available items can be provided to the user. This would benefit a user for the service to provide items in the store and the store will benefit by receiving data and money for when the user buys the item.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 13, 2. Analysis of the Cited References, Stein):
Stein was not relied on “Stein is…not on providing a service at a geographical location in response to user data.” Dominguez discloses based on the data received, service will be provided (Dominguez, par.57;70). Grigg also discloses providing a service leading to an offer (Grigg, par.52).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with “There is no teaching of providing an incentive tied to a physical location or of providing a service at that location as a function of the data shared.” As explained previously, Dominguez and Grigg teaches a service can be provided at a geographical location and that a service can be an offer or some sort of financial benefit as disclosed in Grigg paragraph 52. Jones discloses proving a service as a function of data shared.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 13, 2. Analysis of the Cited References, Dominguez):
Dominguez was not relied on “The system is focused on collecting feedback, not on providing incentives for sharing user data,” Dominguez discloses based on the data received, service will be provided (Dominguez, par.57;70). Cronin discloses providing an incentive for sharing health data. Also,” nor on aggregating data from multiple users to generate an anonymous set” as explained above, the claim does not disclose aggregating from multiple users, but aggregating one user and putting the data into a database with other user devices to generate an anonymous set of user data as disclosed in Stein. Stein already implies aggregating from multiple user (Stein par.44, Fig.1:144, “…which receives consumer data 144 from consumers via the consumer computing devices 20…”). Also, Cronin discloses this type of limitation in par.74, Fig.12 wherein the system polls for user devices to offer tokens for data.
As stated before, the combination of Dominguez, Grigg, and Jones discloses “providing a service at the location as a function of the data shared.”
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 13, 2. Analysis of the Cited References, Grigg):
As stated before, the combination of Dominguez, Grigg, and Jones discloses “providing a service at the location as a function of the data shared.”
Cronin discloses user selection on which data to share as admitted by the applicant, see applicants’ argument page 12, A. Cronin. Jones also discloses of user selecting data and the associate benefit with the data groups. Stein discloses of aggregation into an anonymous set. However, Jones was relied on as Jones reference explicitly state the benefit can increase based on the amount of data shared by the user.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 14, 3. Key Distinctions and Arguments, A, B, C, D, and conclusion):
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with “The office Action does not provide an adequate rationale for combining these references to arrive at the claimed invention.” The cited references all related to commerce, they are to modifying Cronin reference in order to encourage the user to share data and provide service or an incentive. The references are not required to be analogous to each other but to the claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with, “Aggregation of user data from multiple devices into an anonymous set;” as Cronin discloses polling multiple users in par.73-74 and Stein discloses storing data anonymously in par.44, Fig.1:144.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with, “There is no teaching of providing an incentive tied to a physical location or of providing a service at that location as a function of the data shared.” The combination of Jones and Dominguez, and Grigg teach the limitation as mapped in claim 1 as explained above.
Applicant's arguments, pages 15-18, Response to Rejection of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Cronin, Jones-McFadden, Stein), filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 15-16, 2. Analysis of the Cited References, Cronin):
As discussed above, the “Aggregating user data from multiple devices to generate an anonymous set of user data” is relied on Stein reference.
Jones discloses “Providing a service, product, or benefit as a function of the amount of user data selected by the user to provide.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with “Cronin does not disclose: Broadcasting incentives over a communications interface to multiple user devices within a geographical location” As cited from Cronin paragraph 73 and 74, Fig.1, the system polls for wearable devices 202 using Wi-Fi or Bluetooth offering tokens which can be exchanged for a service such as health analysis or discount as disclosed in paragraph 25.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 16, 2. Analysis of the Cited References, Jones-McFadden):
As discussed above, the “Aggregating user data from multiple devices to generate an anonymous set of user data” is relied on Cronin and Stein reference.
Nowhere in claim 12 requires the service, product, or benefit to be provided at a specific geographical location.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with “There is no disclosure of providing a service, product, or benefit as a function of the amount or type of data shared.” Jones paragraphs 10-11;41;43, and Fig.5A state how the benefit increased based on the amount of user data shared.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 16-17, 2. Analysis of the Cited References, Stein):
Nowhere in claim 12 requires the service, product, or benefit to be provided at that geographical location or a specific location. Jones paragraphs 10-11;41;43, and Fig.5A state how the benefit increased based on the amount of user data shared, and that relates to a service, a benefit, or a product.
Examiner Answer to Applicant Argument (Page 17-18, 3. Key Distinctions and Arguments, A, B, C, D, and conclusion):
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with “The office Action does not provide an adequate rationale for combining these references to arrive at the claimed invention.” The cited references all related to commerce, they are to modifying Cronin reference in order to encourage the user to share data and provide service or an incentive.
The reference does teach “Aggregation of user data from multiple devices into an anonymous set; Provision of a service, product, or benefit as a function of the selection of user data willing to be provided; Broadcasting incentives to user devices within a geographical location.” As explained above.
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 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the user input circuitry includes at least one of an accelerometer, an image capturing device, and an audio capturing device, and a touch screen and wherein the response includes at least one of a motion or a gesture of the user” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how “input circuitry includes…audio capturing device” is able to capture “a motion or a gesture of the user” for a “response” because claim 17 lines 5-7 state, “user input circuitry coupled to the communications interface and configured to provide a response to the incentive information.” The applicant specification paragraph 17 specifies, “…language can be detected using a microphone of a user device.” Therefore, for examination purposes, audio commands will be used as another way to accept response to the incentive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
AIA .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 1-3, 6-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to identifying a user near a location, requesting the user for user data for an incentive, allowing the user to choose the amount of data to share, aggregating the user data with other user data in order to make the data anonymous and provide the user with a service or a financial benefit for sharing the user data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved.. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be Certain methods of organizing human activity and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim(s) 1, 12, and 17 are directed to a method, a system, and a device respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES. Claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes - concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 (and the system in claim 12) comprises certain methods of organizing human activity and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 1, A method comprising: requesting user data by providing an incentive to a user of the user device to provide user data (Certain methods of organizing human activity, that includes legal interaction such as sales activities to share user data for an incentive. See specification par.25 for user data could be a text-based question or a questionnaire.);
permitting the user to select the user data that the user is willing to be shared (Certain methods of organizing human activity, that includes legal interaction such as sales activities to allow the user to decide on the amount of data to share. See specification par.18 and 25.);
aggregating the user data, based on a response to the incentive, with data of other user devices to generate an anonymous set of user data (Certain methods of organizing human activity, including forming an agreement to provide user data and the data being anonymous by both parties agreeing to not obtaining user identifiable data and combine the data with other user data. See specification par.25.); and
providing a service to a user of the user device in response to receiving the user data (Certain methods of organizing human activity, that includes legal interaction such as sales activities to once obtaining the user data to then provide a service, incentive, or benefit.);
wherein the service is provided at the geographical location (Certain methods of organizing human activity, including fulfilling the agreement of providing a service, incentive or benefit at the location wherein the data is provided. See specification par.29);
and wherein the incentive relates to a financial benefit or a comfort benefit at the geographical location (Certain methods of organizing human activity, including fulfilling the agreement of providing a service, incentive or benefit for providing user data by providing a financial benefit or a comfort benefit at the location.).
Regarding Claim 12, is similarly analyzed as claim 1 and directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea), certain methods of organizing human activity.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to requesting user data for an incentive, allowing the user to choose the type of data to provide, allowing the user to remain anonymous of providing data and performing services or providing incentive for obtaining user data, which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1, and 12 does/do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 1, recite the further limitation of:
detecting presence of a user device within a proximity of a geographical location (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity locating or detecting users.).
Regarding Claim 12, recite the further limitation of:
a communications interface (generic computers or components configured to perform the method)
configured to broadcast to user devices within a geographical location (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity locating or detecting users); and
processing circuitry coupled to the communications interface and configured to (generic computers or components configured to perform the method):
over the communications interface (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or
change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post
solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are
claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the
abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1, and 12 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well understood, routine or conventional. The use of a system to provide an incentive, as claimed in Claims 1, and 12 is a routine, well-understood, and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, and 12 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, and 12 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Elements such as communication interface, processing circuitry, input circuitry, sensor circuitry are generic computing devices and do not amount to significantly more.
Regarding Claim 2: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the organizing human activity. The limitation(s): providing an indication that the user data has been aggregated without identifying user data (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of notifying the user their data has been aggregated with other user data.).
Regarding Claim 3: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the organizing human activity. The limitation(s): wherein the indication includes a zero-knowledge proof (zero knowledge proof can be a cryptographic technique, however, another interpretation can be made is a party showing proof of aggregating data without revealing data such as when the user is provided with an incentive or a service or a paper indicating the collection of data without showing the data and therefor is an insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of notifying user without revealing their data. Another example is having a third party look into the data and communicating with a verifier the data is stored without letting the verifier know what type of data is stored, and this can be done verbally or communicating with paper.).
Regarding Claim 6: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the organizing human activity. The limitation(s): wherein the incentive relates to a benefit at a different geographical location (Certain methods of organizing human activity, including fulfilling the agreement of providing a service, incentive or benefit for providing user data and obtaining the service, incentive, or benefit at another location.).
Regarding Claim 7: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the organizing human activity. The limitation(s): generating a request to the user device for permission to access the user data (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of asking the user data such as filling out a survey see specification par.25. The generating to a user device is to merely apply the method on a computer.);
retrieving user data upon receiving permission in response to the request (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity retrieving the user survey or user data in order to comply with the obligation in order to provide the user with the incentive, service, or benefit.); and
detecting a response to the request, and selecting at least one sensor output of the user device from which data is collected (Certain methods of organizing human activity, including fulfilling the agreement of providing sensor for a service, incentive, or a benefit as such providing health service for receiving heart rate data. See specification par.18.).
Regarding Claim 8: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the organizing human activity. The limitation(s): wherein the user data includes physiological data captured by the user device (Certain methods of organizing human activity, including fulfilling the agreement of providing sensor for a service, incentive, or a benefit as such providing health service for receiving heart rate data.);
Regarding Claim 9: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the organizing human activity. The limitation(s): wherein the data includes one or more of numerical values, multiple option response values, and text values (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of asking the user data such as filling out a survey see specification par.25.).
Regarding Claim 10: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the organizing human activity. The limitation(s): wherein when the user data includes text values the method further comprises converting the text values to numerical values before aggregation of the numerical values (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of converting data to numerical value and can be done on pen and paper, for example applicant talks the colleting of inputs could be a concert in par.19 application, instead of having a user give a grade from 1 to 10, the user says “concert was great” and that can be convert to a numerical value of 8 out of 10, or its “bad” and that input can be changed to a numerical value 3 out of 10.).
Regarding Claim 11 and 16: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the organizing human activity. The limitation(s): further comprising establishing a connection with the user device, wherein the connection includes at least one of a cellular connection, a Wi-Fi connection, a Bluetooth connection, and a near-field communication (NFC) connection (generic computers or components configured to perform the method.).
Regarding Claim 14: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the organizing human activity. The limitation(s): generate a request, over the communications interface (generic computers or components configured to perform the method.), for permission to access the user data (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of asking the user data such as filling out a survey see specification par.25.);
aggregate data using zero-knowledge methods (zero knowledge proof can be a cryptographic technique, however, another interpretation can be made is a party showing proof of aggregating data without revealing data such as when the user is provided with an incentive or a service or a paper indicating the collection of data without showing the data and therefor is an insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of notifying user without revealing their data. Another example is having a third party look into the data and communicating with a verifier the data is stored without letting the verifier know what type of data is stored, and this can be done verbally or communicating with paper.); and
retrieve user data upon receiving permission in response to the request (Certain methods of organizing human activity, including fulfilling the agreement of providing sensor for a service, incentive, or a benefit as such providing health service for receiving heart rate data.).
Regarding Claim 15, similar analyzed as claim 9 and 10.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US-20180053200-A1) in view of VENKATESAN (US-20240119168-A1) in further view of Chatzigiannakis (“Elliptic Curve Based Zero Knowledge Proofs and Their Applicability on Resource Constrained Devices”, Ioannis Chatzigiannakis et. al.).
Regarding Claim 17, A user device comprising: a communication interface (paragraph [0027], Fig.2, "wearable device 202 includes operating system (OS) 210, power source 212, such as a battery, communications transceiver 214 (comm) for enabling direct and indirect communications" (i.e., user device is the wearable device 202.));
user output circuitry coupled to the communications interface, the output circuitry configured to display incentive information (par.56, token) to a user of the user device to provide user data (paragraph [0056], Fig., "FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary screenshot 800 of data exchange GUI 238 of base software 224 on wearable device 202 of FIG. 2. In this screenshot, a third-party data user 804 (in this case, “Gym”) is requesting a user's personal health parameter data of a given health parameter type, here “Temperature Data” 808…In the example shown in FIG. 8, an incentive offered by Gym to receive such temperature data is to offer a token 828 for a free drink (“smoothie”), redeemable at its facility. This incentive is indicated in a display region 832. To accept this incentive, a user sets data user settings of GUI 232 of FIG. 4 to receive requests from “Gym,” and sets incentive settings to accept “Tokens.”" (i.e., Examiner points to Fig.8 wherein shows a screen of the wearable device 202 asking for data and a token will be provided when the data is shared.));
user input circuitry coupled to the communications interface (paragraph [0027], Fig.2 and Fig.8, "Fundamentally, there is no limitation on what type of wireless communications protocol(s) may be utilized by communications transceiver 214, as long as the selected protocol(s) enables wireless communication of the various signals described below. Each display 216 may be any suitable type of display, such as a graphical display based on liquid crystal technology, light-emitting-diode technology, electronic paper technology, audio technology, or haptic technology, among others, and any combination thereof." (i.e., as shown in Fig.8 and explained by Fig.2 the wearable device has a screen with a GUI that is coupled with “comm.”))
and configured to provide a response to the incentive information (paragraph [0056], Fig.8, "Consequently, a user can make any desired modifications to corresponding rules and flags before accepting (or denying) requests for data using “Yes” or “No” soft buttons 816 and 820, respectively, associated with a “Accept Request?” display option 824." (i.e., User can select Yes or No at Fig.8.)); and
sensor circuitry configured to provide at least one physiological measurement of a user of the user device based on the response to the incentive information (paragraph [0056], Fig.8, "third-party data user 804 (in this case, “Gym”) is requesting a user's personal health parameter data of a given health parameter type, here “Temperature Data”…If a user selects “Yes” soft button 816, base software 224 will cause data exchange software 226 to send a user's personal health parameter data associated with requested health parameter type 808," and paragraph [0025], "…Health parameter types may include activity data, specific types of health related measurements (such as heart rate, temperature, blood pressure, and the like)," (i.e., Par.56 shows an example of a user providing health parameter when the user answers “Yes” and the health parameter is provided by the wearable that has sensors as shown in Fig.2:218));
wherein the sensory circuitry is configured to transform the at least one physiological measurement into (paragraph [0042], Fig.5:512, "As shown in FIG. 5, anonymizing data, as indicated by “Anonymize Data?” option display 512 and corresponding “Yes” and “No” soft buttons 514, 516, respectively, may include replacing identification information (identifying either a user or a user's wearable device 202) that may be included with personal health parameter data as stored in wearable database 220 with a randomly generated number to prevent anyone from associating exchanged personal health parameter data with a particular user…“Encrypt Data?” option display 518 and corresponding “Yes” and “No” soft buttons 520, 524, respectively, may be any sort of encryption, such as a WP2 layer or elliptical curve cryptography, that disallows transmission of personal health parameter data over an unsecure network" and paragraph [0073], Fig.11, “At step 1130, token software 242 may cause data exchange network 206 to store transmitted data in exchange database 246. In some instances, token software 242 may execute activated code that is contained in the software container, e.g., to anonymize and/or encrypt health parameter data if not already done at wearable device 202.” (i.e., The wearable device can encrypt the data using elliptical curve cryptography before providing the data.)).
However, Cronin does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensory circuitry is configured to transform the at least one physiological measurement into a zero-knowledge proof using elliptical-curve cryptography before
VENKATESAN discloses wherein the sensory circuitry is configured to transform the at least one (paragraph [0044], Fig.2:220 and Fig.3:306, "user prompt 236 prompts a user (or an application on behalf of the user) to provide a policy proof to authorize storing of data protected by a security policy. For example, proof generator 220 is configured to generate a zero-knowledge cryptographic proof based at least on a decryption key and unencrypted versions of secret shares that correspond to the decryption key (shown as secret share(s) 224 in FIG. 2). For instance, with respect to the running example, proof generator 220 generates a zero-knowledge cryptographic proof on behalf of Dan based at least on Dan's decryption key and the unencrypted versions of the secret shares generated by secret share generator 250 on behalf of Dan..." and paragraph [0050], Fig.3:310, "In step 310, in response to validating the digital validation request, the data protected by the security policy is stored. For example, data handler 206 transmits a storage signal 242 to data source 108 for storing the data protected by security policy 202 therein, as shown in FIG. 2. Storage signal 242 comprises the data protected by security policy 202…storage signal 242 also includes the policy proof and data source 108 stores the policy proof with the data."(i.e., VENKATESAN teaches of encrypting data by using a proof generator 220 and providing to be stored in a local database 108. Cronin discloses providing physiological data.)).
Cronin and VENKATESAN are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field {Cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic} arrangements for secret or secure communications. Therefore, 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 Cronin to implement the feature of VENKATESAN zero-knowledge protocol in order to improve data encryption in order to prevent malicious entity from utilizing such compute resources (VENKATESAN, paragraph [0026], “Accordingly, the techniques described herein advantageously provide improvements in other technologies, namely data encryption, security, and privacy. For instance, by utilizing a zero-trust model, access to sensitive data, such as decryption keys, is prevented… By mitigating the access to such computing entities, the unnecessary expenditure of compute resources (e.g., central processing units (CPUs), storage devices, memory, power, etc.) associated with such entities is also mitigated. Accordingly, the embodiments described herein also improve the functioning of the computing entity on which such compute resources are utilized/maintained, as such compute resources are conserved as a result from preventing a malicious entity from utilizing such compute resources, e.g., for nefarious purposes.”)
However, Cronin in view of VENKATESAN do not explicitly disclose a zero-knowledge proof using elliptical-curve cryptography.
Chatzigiannakis discloses a zero-knowledge proof using elliptical-curve cryptography (page 1, abstract, "we study well-established ZKP protocols based on the discrete logarithm problem and we adapt them to the Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) setting, which consists an ideal candidate for embedded implementations." page 2, II. Zero Knowledge Protocols based on the ECDLP, " The DLP is defined over arbitrary cyclic groups. A common example of cyclic groups are elliptic curve groups which are defined over an additive group F of order n. The DLP over elliptic curve groups is called ECDLP and can be defined as follows: Given an elliptic curve E over a field F of order n (referred to as Fn from now on), a generator point G ∈ E/Fn and a point B ∈ E/Fn, it is computationally hard to find x ∈ Fn such that B = x·G." (i.e., VENKATESAN teaches a computer device can transform data into ZKP, Chatzigiannakis teaches the ZKP can be used with elliptical-curve cryptography and in combination with Cronin of providing physiological data teaches the said limitation.)).
Cronin in view of VENKATESAN and Chatzigiannakis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field {Cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic} arrangements for secret or secure communications. Therefore, 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 Cronin to implement the feature of Chatzigiannakis zero-knowledge protocol using elliptical curve cryptography (ECC) as ECC proves less time to execute, les memory space and less energy consumption for cryptography for user devices (Chatzigiannakis, page 5, D. Discussion, “First of all, we state why implementing ZKP protocols under the ECC setting is advantageous. As widely known, ECC offers the same level of security as other public key cryptosystems, using smaller key sizes. An implementation of DLP ZKP over multiplicative groups would require the use of at least 1024-bit keys as proposed by NIST. A reader can realize that using elliptic curve groups instead of multiplicative groups, the arithmetic operations need less time to execute, less memory space and thus less energy consumption. In fact, it has been proven that ECC actually outperforms RSA on constrained environments in terms of computation time, memory requirements and thus energy consumption [4]. Moreover, ECC offers the advantage of smaller message sizes that cost less and have better chances of being delivered.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Cronin in view of VENKATESAN in further view of Chatzigiannakis discloses all the limitation of claim 17.
Cronin further discloses wherein the user input circuitry includes at least one of an accelerometer, an image capturing device, and an audio capturing device (paragraph [0047], Fig.6, "An audio subsystem 644 may be coupled to a speaker 648 and a microphone 652 to facilitate voice-enabled functions, such as speaker recognition, voice replication, digital recording, and/or telephony functions. Audio subsystem 644 may be configured to facilitate processing voice commands, voice-printing, and voice authentication." and paragraph [0049], “Using the same or similar buttons or other controls, a user may activate a voice control, or voice command, module that enables the user to speak commands into microphone to cause device 600 to execute the spoken command A user may customize functionality of one or more buttons or other controls.”),
and a touch screen (paragraph [0056], Fig.8, "FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary screenshot 800 of data exchange GUI 238 of base software 224 on wearable device 202 of FIG. 2." (i.e., Examiner also points to par.27, Fig.2, wherein the input circuitry is a touch screen.)),
and wherein the response includes at least one of a motion of the user (paragraph [0056], Fig.8, "If a user selects “Yes” soft button 816, base software 224 will cause data exchange software 226 to send a user's personal health parameter data associated with requested health parameter type 808, along with any set flags (as described above with reference to FIG. 5) and in accordance with any set rules (as described above with reference to FIG. 4)." (i.e., because the user input circuitry is a touch screen, the motion that correlates to accepting the response is the “user selects” using the touch screen.)).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US-20180053200-A1) in view of VENKATESAN (US-20240119168-A1) in view of Chatzigiannakis (“Elliptic Curve Based Zero Knowledge Proofs and Their Applicability on Resource Constrained Devices”, Ioannis Chatzigiannakis et. al.) in further view of Stein (US-20160323247-A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Cronin in view of VENKATESAN in further view of Chatzigiannakis discloses all the limitation of claim 17.
However, Cronin in view of VENKATESAN in further view of Chatzigiannakis do not disclose wherein the user output circuitry is configured to receive an indication over the communications interface that the user data has been aggregated without identifying the user data.
Stein discloses wherein the user output circuitry is configured to receive an indication (par.71, alert) over the communications interface that the user data has been aggregated without identifying the user data (paragraph [0071], "In certain embodiments, upon receiving validated consumer data 144 from the data institutions, the consumer data validation engine 130 may automatically alert the consumer portal 124 of the receipt of the validated consumer data 144, The consumer portal 124 may automatically alert the vendor portal 128 of the arrival of the availability of the validated anonymized consumer data 146 for the consumer," and paragraph [0043], " the term “anonymized consumer data” is used herein to refer to consumer data and/or information that is not capable of uniquely identifying the consumer," (i.e., after the user data is aggregated the user data is validated and sent an alert, the "without identifying user data” is reading as data is anonymized as in there is no data that identifies the user. Par.59 includes what anonymized consumer data includes.)).
Cronin in view of VENKATESAN in further view of Chatzigiannakis and Stein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field commerce. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) in order to implement the system of Stein such as system for anonymized transparent information exchange (Stein, Fig.1:101) as the system can allow Cronin to store anonymized data as this would improve Cronin data exchange network to obtain more user data the user would not willingly to share and Stein discloses a benefit of validating the data for the vendor in order to provide vendors who are interested in accurate data (Stein, abstract, “The systems and methods allow vendors to offer financial services or transactions to a consumer based on that consumer's validated financial data, without giving the vendor identifying data about the consumer.” and paragraph [0013], “The disclosed embodiments may allow any parties to anonymously and transparently exchange any type of information with a heightened level of certainty that received information is accurate.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Cronin in view of VENKATESAN in view of Chatzigiannakis in further view of Stein discloses all the limitation of claim 18.
Cronin further discloses wherein the user output circuitry is configured to provide a termination indication that sharing is complete (paragraph [0063], Fig.9, "At step 945, base software 224 causes wearable device 202 to display at display 216 one or both of data analysis GUI 236 (as described with reference to FIG. 7) and data exchange GUI 238 (as described with reference to FIG. 8), to the extent applicable." (i.e., a termination indication is implied since the wearable device provides the data analysis or the data exchange since data exchange is completed.)).
Claim(s) 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US-20180053200-A1) in view of Jones (US-20170011229-A1) in further view of Stein (US-20160323247-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Cronin discloses a system comprising: a communications interface configured to broadcast (par.73, poll) to user devices within a geographical location (par.73, geolocation) (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, " FIG. 11 illustrates an exemplary method 1100 that can be performed by token software 242 running on data exchange network 206 of FIG. 2. At step 1105, token software 242 may cause data exchange network 206 to poll for wearable devices 202. This could be done, for example, by geolocation or connectivity to a network via a BLUETOOTH or WI-FI connection, among others. " (i.e., locating wearable devices 202 in a geolocation.)); and
processing circuitry coupled to the communications interface and configured to:
provide an incentive (par.73, token), over the communications interface, to a user of the user device to provide user data (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, "At step 1115, if such polling results in a wearable device being found, token software 242 causes data exchange network 206 to send a request to a detected wearable device 202, with an offer to provide a token in exchange for personal health parameter data of a particular health parameter type." And paragraph [0025], “By way of example and not limitation, an “incentive” may include one or more of a token (for example, a discount on an item, or an offer of a free item), rewards points for, e.g., a credit card, a payment, a software application (commonly, an “app”) made available for free or at discounted cost to a user device associated with a user, an offer to provide an analysis on personal health” (i.e., Provide token for user data.));
However, provide the user the ability to select the user data the user is willing to provide; aggregate the user data with data of other user devices to generate an anonymous set of user data; and provide at least one of a service, product, or benefit to a user of the user device in response to receiving the user data as a function of an amount of user data selected by the user to provide wherein an amount of service, product, or benefit provided is a function of the selection of user data willing to be provided.
Jones discloses provide the user the ability to select the user data the user is willing to provide (paragraph [0043], Fig.1, "After the user interface has been provided to the user, the process 100 progresses to prompting 112, via the user interface, the user for selection of at least one of the user data groups and at least one benefit for sharing the at least one of the user data groups. This step is visualized in FIGS. 5B and 5C. If the user decides to share at least one of the data groups, (e.g., the user transaction data, or the like), then the process 100 is directed to receiving 114 an indication that the user has selected to share one of the user data groups in exchange for the benefit." (i.e., Examiner points to Figs. 5B and 5C wherein shows a user interface the user choses the type of data to share with the institution.));
provide at least one of a service, product, or benefit to a user of the user device in response to receiving the user data as a function of an amount of user data selected by the user to provide (paragraph [0041], "Once the user data has been received and aggregated into two or more user data groups, the method 100 advances to identifying 106, for each of the user data groups, at least one benefit that at least one entity is willing to offer to the user in exchange for the user data within the user data group. Benefits may include cash, discounts, coupons, loyalty points, better interest rates, offers for products, added services to a user's current services, new services, or the like. " (i.e., providing a service, product, or benefit when receiving the data as the amount of data provided by user.)).
wherein an amount of service, product, or benefit provided is a function of the selection of user data willing to be provided (paragraph [0010], "In some implementations, the at least one benefit includes at least one of cash, credits, discounts, loyalty points, added personal services," and paragraph [0011], Fig.5A, " In some implementations, the value of the at least one benefit is increased based on an increase in the amount of user data provided in exchange for the benefit." (i.e., Jones describes the more data the user shares the more reward will increase.)).
Cronin and Jones are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field sharing user data with entities in return for user benefits. Therefore, 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 Cronin to implement the method of choosing the type of data to share as Jones discloses its desirable for the user to make a choose on the type of data to share (Jones, paragraph [0028], “Such unauthorized or uncontrollable user data sharing posts clear adverse effects to the user's discretion on what to do with his own data. Thus, it would be desirable that a user can control over what kind of user data he wants to share with which party in exchange for what benefits. Some embodiments arise, in part, from the realization that a system can advantageously be configured to enable a user to direct sharing of user data with entities in return for user benefits.”).
However, Cronin in view of Jones do not disclose aggregate the user data with data of other user devices to generate an anonymous set of user data.
Stein discloses aggregate the user data with data of other user devices to generate an anonymous set of user data (paragraph [0065], Fig.1, "The data aggregator 134 may track and/or aggregate anonymized consumer data 146 based on one or more relevant tracking criteria. Relevant tracking criteria may include visiting a vendor's location (e.g., a store) or website, closing/accepting a vendor offer, income information, age, and any other relevant consumer characteristic." and paragraph [0074], Fig.1, "The data aggregator 134 may track and aggregate consumer data 144, and more specifically consumer profiles 142 and associated consumer data 144, for detected consumers…Generally the data aggregator 134 will only have access to anonymized consumer data 146 associated with a consumer profile 142." (i.e., Fig.1:146 discloses user data that is anonymized and is stored in anonymized consumer data 146.)).
Cronin in view of Jones and Stein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field commerce. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) in order to implement the system of Stein such as system for anonymized transparent information exchange (Stein, Fig.1:101) as the system can allow Cronin to store anonymized data as this would improve Cronin data exchange network to obtain more user data the user would not willingly to share and Stein discloses a benefit of validating the data for the vendor in order to provide vendors who are interested in accurate data (Stein, abstract, “The systems and methods allow vendors to offer financial services or transactions to a consumer based on that consumer's validated financial data, without giving the vendor identifying data about the consumer.” and paragraph [0013], “The disclosed embodiments may allow any parties to anonymously and transparently exchange any type of information with a heightened level of certainty that received information is accurate.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Cronin of Jones in further view of Stein discloses all the limitation of claim 12.
Cronin further discloses wherein the communications interface is configured to communicate using at least one of a Wi-Fi connection, a Bluetooth connection (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, " FIG. 11 illustrates an exemplary method 1100 that can be performed by token software 242 running on data exchange network 206 of FIG. 2. At step 1105, token software 242 may cause data exchange network 206 to poll for wearable devices 202. This could be done, for example, by geolocation or connectivity to a network via a BLUETOOTH or WI-FI connection, among others." (i.e., discloses either Bluetooth or WI-FI.))
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US-20180053200-A1) in view of Jones (US-20170011229-A1) in view of Stein (US-20160323247-A1) in further view of Bradshaw (US-20220207182-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Cronin in view of Jones in further view of Stein discloses all the limitation of claim 12.
Stein further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to compute and provide an indication that the user data has been aggregated without identifying the user data (paragraph [0071], "In certain embodiments, upon receiving validated consumer data 144 from the data institutions, the consumer data validation engine 130 may automatically alert the consumer portal 124 of the receipt of the validated consumer data 144, The consumer portal 124 may automatically alert the vendor portal 128 of the arrival of the availability of the validated anonymized consumer data 146 for the consumer," and paragraph [0043], " the term “anonymized consumer data” is used herein to refer to consumer data and/or information that is not capable of uniquely identifying the consumer," (i.e., after the user data is aggregated the user data is validated and sent an alert, the "without identifying user data” is reading as data is anonymized as in there is no data that identifies the user. Par.59 includes what anonymized consumer data includes.)),
and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to provide the indication to the user device (paragraph [0071], "…the consumer data validation engine 130 may automatically alert the consumer portal 124 " (i.e., sending out an alert the user data is aggregated.)).
However, Cronin in view of Jones in further view of Stein do not disclose wherein the indication includes a zero-knowledge proof based on an elliptic curve cryptography (ECC).
Bradshaw discloses wherein the indication includes a zero-knowledge proof based on an elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) (paragraph [0105], Fig.12, "identifiers are encrypted by generating a non-interactive zero-knowledge proof…” and paragraph [0142], "The protocol used in this embodiment is a Schnorr zero-knowledge proof protocol, made non-interactive by a Fiat-Shamir modification, using elliptic curve cryptography." (i.e., Bradshaw discloses zero-knowledge proof using elliptic curve cryptography.)).
Cronin in view of Jones in further view of Stein and Bradshaw are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the user data collection. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) to provide an alert wherein is a zero-knowledge proof as a secure way of communicating possession of data without revealing unnecessary information and sensitive information can stay encrypted (paragraph [0105], “In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof of knowledge is a piece of information produced by one party to prove that it knows a secret without revealing the secret.”).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US-20180053200-A1) in view of Jones (US-20170011229-A1) in view of Stein (US-20160323247-A1) in further view of ROSSALLINI (WO-2021142429-A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Cronin of Jones in further view of Stein discloses all the limitation of claim 12.
Cronin further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate a request, over the communications interface, for permission to access the user data (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, "At step 1115, if such polling results in a wearable device being found, token software 242 causes data exchange network 206 to send a request to a detected wearable device 202, with an offer to provide a token in exchange for personal health parameter data of a particular health parameter type." And paragraph [0025], “By way of example and not limitation, an “incentive” may include one or more of a token (for example, a discount on an item, or an offer of a free item), rewards points for, e.g., a credit card, a payment, a software application (commonly, an “app”) made available for free or at discounted cost to a user device associated with a user, an offer to provide an analysis on personal health” (i.e., Provide token for user data.));
retrieve user data upon receiving permission in response to the request (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, "…If a request has been accepted, at step 1125 token software 242 causes data exchange network 206 to receive requested data (in the form of a software container, if one or more flags are associated with such requested personal health parameter data as described above with reference to FIGS. 10B-10C) from wearable device 202." (i.e., retrieving user data when the request has been accepted.));
However, Cronin does not disclose aggregate data using zero-knowledge methods.
ROSSALLINI discloses aggregate data using zero-knowledge methods (page 3, paragraph 3, “The data from all of these sources may be stored in the repository in raw form or may be processed to obtain processed data such as aggregated data, The sensitive data may be associated with an individual user by metadata such as a user ID or index, Preferably. the repository implements a zero-knowledge storage system… The data and access to the data may be secured by appropriate means. For example, the data may be encrypted and the channels used to access or disseminate the data may be encrypted channels.” (i.e., ROSSALLINI discloses a zero-knowledge storage to store sensitive information by encryption using a zero-knowledge storage system.)).
Cronin of Jones in further view of Stein and ROSSALLINI are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same commerce. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) to implement a repository of ROSSALLINI system in order to provide encryption to the data provided by the user and gives more control to the user on which data can be accessed and used (ROSSALINI, page 4, paragraph 1, “In this manner, the repository can accumulate a rich and definitive set of sensitive information about users while allowing the users to maintain control over how the sensitive information is accessed and used.”).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US-20180053200-A1) in view of Jones (US-20170011229-A1) in view of Stein (US-20160323247-A1) in view of Klein (US-20140310062-A1) in further view of CASSO (US-20140095313-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Cronin in view of Jones in further view of Stein discloses all the limitation of claim 12.
Cronin further discloses wherein the data includes one or more of numerical values (paragraph [0027], “…Wearable database 220 stores personal health parameter data as generally described above, such as raw data acquired using sensor(s) 218 and/or processed versions of the raw data, and may include other data related thereto, such as date/time when such raw and/or processed data was obtained,” (i.e., Cronin discloses inputting numerical or raw data.));
However, Cronin in view of Jones in further view of Stein do not disclose multiple option response values, and text values and wherein when the user data includes text values the processing circuitry is configured to generate numerical values base on the text values before aggregation.
Klein discloses multiple option response values (paragraph [0044], “Further functions of the surveys UI 318 relates to answer a survey question. End users access the module 318 and open a question within a survey file…Each survey includes a variety of multiple choice questions 706 including free text fields 708 for the entry of observations.” (i.e., Klein discloses filling out a survey that has multiple choice.)),
and text values (paragraph [0044], “Further functions of the surveys UI 318 relates to answer a survey question. End users access the module 318 and open a question within a survey file…Each survey includes a variety of multiple choice questions 706 including free text fields 708 for the entry of observations.” (i.e., Klein discloses free text fields for text input.)).
Cronin in view of Jones in further view of Stein and Klein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field commerce. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) to use the disclosed system in Klein (Klein, Fig.3) as that would enable Cronin to gain more user data and with more user data this would lead to more data being traded for token as described in Cronin as it would increase in the variety of data the Cronin system can access instead of limiting to only health data (Klein, paragraph [0004], “Furthermore, the disclosed system and methodologies allow an organization to generate new surveys in an iterative manner based upon user feedback. In this manner, an organization relying upon survey results can gain greater insight into selected users.”).
However, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in further view Klein do not disclose wherein when the user data includes text values the processing circuitry is configured to generate numerical values base on the text values before aggregation.
CASSO discloses wherein when the user data includes text values the processing circuitry is configured to generate numerical values base on the text values before aggregation (paragraph [0043], Fig.1-1, “The method 150 can include the step 152 of obtaining an input string, the step 154 of converting characters of the input string into numerical digits to form a numerical string, the step 156 of multiplying the numerical string by a constant to form a code, and the step 158 of inputting one or more digits of the code into an algorithm.” and paragraph [0055], Fig.2, “The step 204 of encrypting the first document can occur in real-time such that the information received from the receiving step 202 is immediately encrypted before it is stored in accordance with the step 206 of storing the document. Alternatively, the step 204 of encrypting the first document can include encrypting the document after it is stored in accordance with the step 206 of storing the document.” (i.e., Fig.1-1 discuss encryption process and Fig.2 discuss how the encryption happens before storing the document or in this case the survey text of Klein.)).
Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in further view Klein and CASSO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field commerce. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) to use the disclosed system in CASSO of encrypting data such as text value as it is desirable for the user to keep their data safe before providing to another entity (CASSO, paragraph [0008], “Accordingly, the information stored in a less secured location (e.g., an individual's house) is more vulnerable to the risk of being stolen or accessed by unauthorized individuals. Last, even if the information holder intended for a particular individual to access or receive his information, the information holder may desire that the recipient access the information at a particular time, and not before.”).
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US-20180053200-A1) in view of Jones (US-20170011229-A1) in view of Stein (US-20160323247-A1) in view of Dominguez (US-20170352068-A1) in further view of Grigg (US-20130046634-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cronin discloses a method comprising:
detecting presence of a user device within a proximity of a geographical location (par.73, geolocation) (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, " FIG. 11 illustrates an exemplary method 1100 that can be performed by token software 242 running on data exchange network 206 of FIG. 2. At step 1105, token software 242 may cause data exchange network 206 to poll for wearable devices 202. This could be done, for example, by geolocation or connectivity to a network via a BLUETOOTH or WI-FI connection, among others. " and paragraph [0074], Fig.12, “At step 1205, data analysis software 244 may cause data exchange network 206 to poll for wearable devices 202.” (i.e., locating wearable devices 202 in a geolocation.));
requesting user data by providing an incentive to a user of the user device to provide user data (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, "At step 1115, if such polling results in a wearable device being found, token software 242 causes data exchange network 206 to send a request to a detected wearable device 202, with an offer to provide a token in exchange for personal health parameter data of a particular health parameter type." and paragraph [0025], “By way of example and not limitation, an “incentive” may include one or more of a token (for example, a discount on an item, or an offer of a free item), rewards points for, e.g., a credit card, a payment, a software application (commonly, an “app”) made available for free or at discounted cost to a user device associated with a user, an offer to provide an analysis on personal health” (i.e., Provide token for user data.));
However, Cronin does not explicitly disclose permitting the user to select the user data that the user is willing to be shared; aggregating the user data, based on a response to the incentive, with data of other user devices to generate an anonymous set of user data; and providing a service to a user of the user device in response to receiving the user data; wherein the service is provided at the geographical location and wherein the incentive relates to a financial benefit or a comfort benefit at the geographical location; and wherein an amount of service provided is a function of the selection of user data willing to be shared.
Jones discloses permitting the user to select the user data that the user is willing to be shared (paragraph [0043], Fig.1, "After the user interface has been provided to the user, the process 100 progresses to prompting 112, via the user interface, the user for selection of at least one of the user data groups and at least one benefit for sharing the at least one of the user data groups. This step is visualized in FIGS. 5B and 5C. If the user decides to share at least one of the data groups, (e.g., the user transaction data, or the like), then the process 100 is directed to receiving 114 an indication that the user has selected to share one of the user data groups in exchange for the benefit." (i.e., Examiner points to Figs. 5B and 5C wherein shows a user interface the user choses the type of data to share with the institution.));
wherein an amount of service provided is a function of the selection of user data willing to be shared (paragraph [0010], "the at least one benefit includes at least one…added personal services, improved personal services," and paragraph [0011], Fig.5A, " In some implementations, the value of the at least one benefit is increased based on an increase in the amount of user data provided in exchange for the benefit." (i.e., Cronin describes providing a service as described in paragraph 25 and Jones discloses the service can be improved by providing more data.)).
Cronin and Jones are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field sharing user data with entities in return for user benefits. Therefore, 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 Cronin to implement the method of choosing the type of data to share as Jones discloses its desirable for the user to make a choose on the type of data to share (Jones, paragraph [0028], “Such unauthorized or uncontrollable user data sharing posts clear adverse effects to the user's discretion on what to do with his own data. Thus, it would be desirable that a user can control over what kind of user data he wants to share with which party in exchange for what benefits. Some embodiments arise, in part, from the realization that a system can advantageously be configured to enable a user to direct sharing of user data with entities in return for user benefits.”).
However, Cronin in view of Jones does not disclose aggregating the user data, based on a response to the incentive, with data of other user devices to generate an anonymous set of user data; and providing a service to a user of the user device in response to receiving the user data; wherein the service is provided at the geographical location and wherein the incentive relates to a financial benefit or a comfort benefit at the geographical location.
Stein discloses aggregating the user data, based on a response to the incentive (paragraph [0044], Fig.1, “…which communicates over a network 10 with consumer computing devices 20, vendor computing devices 30, and data institutions 50. The system architecture 100 facilitates information exchange through the system 101, which receives consumer data 144 from consumers via the consumer computing devices 20 and vendor data 150 from vendors via the vendor computing devices 30…” and paragraph [0065], "The data aggregator 134 may track and/or aggregate anonymized consumer data 146 based on one or more relevant tracking criteria. Relevant tracking criteria may include visiting a vendor's location (e.g., a store) or website, closing/accepting a vendor offer, income information, age, and any other relevant consumer characteristic." (i.e., "based on the response to the incentive" is reading as user agreeing to share the data as described in Cronin Fig.11.)), with data of other user devices to generate an anonymous set of user data (paragraph [0074], Fig.1, "The data aggregator 134 may track and aggregate consumer data 144, and more specifically consumer profiles 142 and associated consumer data 144, for detected consumers…Generally the data aggregator 134 will only have access to anonymized consumer data 146 associated with a consumer profile 142." (i.e., Fig.1:146 discloses user data that is anonymized. Stein is to aggregate the data with other data in Fig.1:146 in order to keep it anonymized.)).
Cronin in view of Jones and Stein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field commerce. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) in order to implement the system of Stein such as system for anonymized transparent information exchange (Stein, Fig.1:101) as the system can allow Cronin to store anonymized data as this would improve Cronin data exchange network to obtain more user data the user would not willingly to share and Stein discloses a benefit of validating the data for the vendor in order to provide vendors who are interested in accurate data (Stein, abstract, “The systems and methods allow vendors to offer financial services or transactions to a consumer based on that consumer's validated financial data, without giving the vendor identifying data about the consumer.” and paragraph [0013], “The disclosed embodiments may allow any parties to anonymously and transparently exchange any type of information with a heightened level of certainty that received information is accurate.”).
However, Cronin in view of Jones in further view of Stein does not disclose providing a service to a user of the user device in response to receiving the user data; wherein the service is provided at the geographical location and wherein the incentive relates to a financial benefit or a comfort benefit at the geographical location.
Dominguez discloses providing a service to a user of the user device in response to receiving the user data (paragraph [0057], Fig.2, "The person 204 entering the range 202 can trigger the system to begin to elicit feedback data, via a system interface 206, from the person 204 based on any known information and/or dynamically generated inferences associated with survey questions…which encompasses item 214, that the person 204 has some interest in the item 214. Therefore, the survey question could focus on what made the person 204 bring the item 214 to a register for checkout near the wireless networking device 200." and paragraph [0070], "Based on the interest data, a second item of interest and a location associated with the second item of interest can be determined at element 702. The location of the second item of interest can also be relative to the wireless networking device or another wireless networking device. For instance based on receiving an indication that a user likes peanut butter crackers, the system can determine/infer that the person might also like peanut butter cookies and then prompt the user for an input associated with peanut butter cookies. Consequently, the system can present the user with the location associated with the peanut butter cookies." (i.e., receiving user data such as filling out the dynamic survey, using the data to provide a service such as finding an item in the store.));
wherein the service is provided at the geographical location (paragraph [0070], Fig.7, "…Consequently, the system can present the user with the location associated with the peanut butter cookies…" (i.e., the service is provided at the location as shown in an example in par.70.)).
Cronin in view of Jones in further view of Stein and Dominguez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field commerce. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) in order to implement the system of Dominguez in order to enable Cronin after detecting a user to provide a service in the location in order to improve customer experience and increase in customer participation to share data for increased service (Dominguez, paragraph [0046], “Real-time feedback can improve time-to-market for products, compelling features, and real-time pivot opportunities for experiences based on customer demand. The additional data can also provide a foundation for new offers and potential advertising opportunities reflective of a broader participating customer base. The additional scale of respondents should also contribute to less sample bias (either extremely satisfied or extremely dissatisfied). Furthermore, there is an added benefit of improved employee programs”).
However, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in further view of Dominguez does not disclose wherein the incentive relates to a financial benefit or a comfort benefit at the geographical location.
Grigg discloses and wherein the incentive relates to a financial benefit (paragraph [0052], "In this way the location data may be analyzed by the financial institution application 258 to determine the merchant area the user 202 is currently shopping in, such that if the user 202 is within a merchant area the system may recognize the merchant area and provide offers for merchants in a different merchant area or the same merchant area. In this way, the location data provided by the POS system 206 to the financial institution application 258 may aid in providing the user 202 offers for products from merchants within a merchant area. In some embodiments, the merchant area may be the same merchant area the user 202 is currently shopping." and paragraph [0094], “Using the interface or other means the user 202 may provide watch list products, services, or business to the geographic proximity offer program at any time convenient to the user 202. In this way, the user 202 may provide products, services, or business to the watch list at any time they have access to online banking or an application on the mobile device 204 of the user 202.” (i.e., providing a user with an offer for merchant at the same area. Examiner is reading “an incentive” is the same as “an offer.”)).
Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in further view of Dominguez and Grigg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field commerce. Therefore, 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 Cronin system to enable the wearable devices to obtain offers at the same location or different location so the user does not miss out on any special offers (Grigg, paragraph [0030], “…In addition, the term "offer" is used herein to denote any form of offer, promotion, rebate, coupon, incentive, and/or the like offered for the purchase, lease, and/or the like of a product…” and paragraph [0094], “Using the interface or other means the user 202 may provide watch list products, services, or business to the geographic proximity offer program at any time convenient to the user 202. In this way, the user 202 may provide products, services, or business to the watch list at any time they have access to online banking or an application on the mobile device 204 of the user 202.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Stein further discloses further comprising:
providing an indication (par.71, alert) that the user data has been aggregated without identifying user data (paragraph [0071], "In certain embodiments, upon receiving validated consumer data 144 from the data institutions, the consumer data validation engine 130 may automatically alert the consumer portal 124 of the receipt of the validated consumer data 144, The consumer portal 124 may automatically alert the vendor portal 128 of the arrival of the availability of the validated anonymized consumer data 146 for the consumer," and paragraph [0043], " the term “anonymized consumer data” is used herein to refer to consumer data and/or information that is not capable of uniquely identifying the consumer," (i.e., after the user data is aggregated the user data is validated and sent an alert, the "without identifying user data” is reading as data is anonymized as in there is no data that identifies the user. Par.59 includes what anonymized consumer data includes.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 6, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg discloses all the limitation of claim 2.
Grigg further discloses wherein the incentive relates to a benefit (par.52, offers) at a different geographical location (paragraph [0052], "In this way the location data may be analyzed by the financial institution application 258 to determine the merchant area the user 202 is currently shopping in, such that if the user 202 is within a merchant area the system may recognize the merchant area and provide offers for merchants in a different merchant area or the same merchant area… In some embodiments the merchant area may be a different merchant area than the one the user 202 is currently shopping. " (i.e., Grigg discloses the offer can be provided ad a different area.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 7, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Cronin further discloses further comprising generating a request to the user device for permission to access the user data (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, "At step 1115, if such polling results in a wearable device being found, token software 242 causes data exchange network 206 to send a request to a detected wearable device 202, with an offer to provide a token in exchange for personal health parameter data of a particular health parameter type." And paragraph [0025], “By way of example and not limitation, an “incentive” may include one or more of a token (for example, a discount on an item, or an offer of a free item), rewards points for, e.g., a credit card, a payment, a software application (commonly, an “app”) made available for free or at discounted cost to a user device associated with a user, an offer to provide an analysis on personal health” (i.e., Provide token for user data.));
retrieving user data upon receiving permission in response to the request (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, "…If a request has been accepted, at step 1125 token software 242 causes data exchange network 206 to receive requested data (in the form of a software container, if one or more flags are associated with such requested personal health parameter data as described above with reference to FIGS. 10B-10C) from wearable device 202." (i.e., retrieving user data when the request has been accepted.)); and
detecting a response to the request, and selecting at least one sensor output of the user device from which data is collected (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, “If a request has been accepted, at step 1125 token software 242 causes data exchange network 206 to receive requested data (in the form of a software container, if one or more flags are associated with such requested personal health parameter data as described above with reference to FIGS. 10B-10C) from wearable device 202.” and paragraph [0041], Fig.5, “In this screenshot, flag data GUI 234 includes various soft buttons that allow a user to set data sharing settings pertaining to security settings such as automated deletion, anonymizing data, and encrypting data.” (i.e., “detecting a response to the request” is reading on “the flag” as the flag data is the user response to the request on what the data can done as explained in Fig.5, par.41-42.)).
Regarding Claim 8, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Cronin further discloses wherein the user data includes physiological data captured by the user device (paragraph [0055], Fig.7, " In this screenshot, a third-party data requester 704 (in this case, “Big Data Company”) has submitted a request for a user's personal health parameter data for analysis, here health parameter types “Activity Data” 708 and “Heart Rate Data” 712. " (i.e., the wearable device can send physiological data such as activity data and heart rate. Par.36, Fig.3, show other types of physiological data.)).
Regarding Claim 9, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Cronin further discloses wherein the data includes one or more of numerical values (paragraph [0027], “…Wearable database 220 stores personal health parameter data as generally described above, such as raw data acquired using sensor(s) 218 and/or processed versions of the raw data, and may include other data related thereto, such as date/time when such raw and/or processed data was obtained,” (i.e., Cronin discloses inputting numerical or raw data.));
Dominguez further discloses text values (paragraph [0038], “There are four fundamental problems that the interactive feedback system can address: 1) obtaining accurate survey feedback via a finer granularity of responses/customer inputs (going a layer deeper on ‘why’);” (i.e., filling out the survey with text value in “why” section.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 11, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Cronin further discloses further comprising establishing a connection with the user device, wherein the connection includes at least one of a Wi-Fi connection, a Bluetooth connection (paragraph [0073], Fig.11, " At step 1105, token software 242 may cause data exchange network 206 to poll for wearable devices 202. This could be done, for example, by geolocation or connectivity to a network via a BLUETOOTH or WI-FI connection, among others." (i.e., mobile device 1100 can communicate using Wi-Fi.)).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US-20180053200-A1) in view of Jones (US-20170011229-A1) in view of Stein (US-20160323247-A1) in view of Dominguez (US-20170352068-A1) in view of Grigg (US-20130046634-A1) in further view of Bradshaw (US-20220207182-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg discloses all the limitation of claim 2.
However, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg do not disclose wherein the indication includes a zero-knowledge proof.
Bradshaw discloses wherein the indication includes a zero-knowledge proof (paragraph [0105], Fig.12, "identifiers are encrypted by generating a non-interactive zero-knowledge proof of knowledge of each identifier 1203…A second party uses the proof to verify that the first party does indeed know the secret, but again without revealing the secret. In this case, the secret is identifier 1203." (i.e., the second party could be the user of the data that shared their data to the first party that could be the vendor. The vendor now has the user data without the identity of the consumer since the identifiers is encrypted.)).
Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg and Bradshaw are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the user data collection. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) to provide an alert wherein is a zero-knowledge proof as a secure way of communicating possession of data without revealing unnecessary information and sensitive information can stay encrypted (paragraph [0105], “In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof of knowledge is a piece of information produced by one party to prove that it knows a secret without revealing the secret.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in view of Grigg in further view of Bradshaw discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Bradshaw further discloses wherein the indication is based on an elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) (paragraph [0141], “other zero-knowledge protocols could be used…The second party should not be able to decrypt the encrypted identifier, and to achieve this the first party may use an additional variable, known only to itself, in the encryption process.” and paragraph [0142], "The protocol used in this embodiment is a Schnorr zero-knowledge proof protocol, made non-interactive by a Fiat-Shamir modification, using elliptic curve cryptography." (i.e., Bradshaw discloses zero-knowledge proof using elliptic curve cryptography.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin (US-20180053200-A1) in view of Jones (US-20170011229-A1) in view of Stein (US-20160323247-A1) in view of Dominguez (US-20170352068-A1) in view of Grigg (US-20130046634-A1) in further view of CASSO (US-20140095313-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg discloses all the limitation of claim 9.
However, Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg do not disclose wherein when the user data includes text values the method further comprises converting the text values to numerical values before aggregation of the numerical values.
CASSO discloses wherein when the user data includes text values the processing circuitry is configured to generate numerical values base on the text values before aggregation (paragraph [0043], Fig.1-1, “The method 150 can include the step 152 of obtaining an input string, the step 154 of converting characters of the input string into numerical digits to form a numerical string, the step 156 of multiplying the numerical string by a constant to form a code, and the step 158 of inputting one or more digits of the code into an algorithm.” and paragraph [0055], Fig.2, “The step 204 of encrypting the first document can occur in real-time such that the information received from the receiving step 202 is immediately encrypted before it is stored in accordance with the step 206 of storing the document. Alternatively, the step 204 of encrypting the first document can include encrypting the document after it is stored in accordance with the step 206 of storing the document.” (i.e., Fig.1-1 discuss encryption process and Fig.2 discuss how the encryption happens before storing the document or in this case the survey text of Klein.)).
Cronin in view of Jones in view of Stein in view of Dominguez in further view of Grigg and CASSO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field commerce. Therefore, 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 Cronin data exchange network (Cronin, Fig.2:206) to use the disclosed system in CASSO of encrypting data such as text value as it is desirable for the user to keep their data safe before providing to another entity (CASSO, paragraph [0008], “Accordingly, the information stored in a less secured location (e.g., an individual's house) is more vulnerable to the risk of being stolen or accessed by unauthorized individuals. Last, even if the information holder intended for a particular individual to access or receive his information, the information holder may desire that the recipient access the information at a particular time, and not before.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. The fax phone number for the organization wing here 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648