DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the claims
2. Applicant filed the Request for Continued Examination on 07/18/2025. Claims 1-10 and 21-23 are pending. Claims 1-10 are amended. Claims 12-20 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are newly added.
3. However, amended claims 1-10 and new claims 21-23 require species restriction:
Species A: Represented by paragraph 38 of the specification, which describes a gate system that grants or denies a requested access permission based on a received previous verification tokens and/or veto tokens.
Species B: Represented by paragraph 42 of the specification and fig.2, which describes a client device requesting an access to a secure resource based on ID token comprising a set of biometric data.
4. The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
5. Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10 are directed to Species A - granting or denying the requested access permission based on the received previous verification tokens and/or veto tokens.
6. Claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-23 are directed to Species B - requesting the access to the secure resource based on ID token comprising the set of biometric data.
7. Examiner decided to elect claims 1-10 (originally presented) encompassing Species A for examination and withdraw claims 21-23 from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC § 101
8. Applicant’s arguments toward 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is not persuasive. Amended independent claim 1 do not have additional elements that could lead to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
9. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims as a whole directed to authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial or legal interactions)”.
10. Applicant is of the opinion that the abstract idea integrated into a practical application, because the claims reflect a concrete implementation of a technical improvement to authentication and access control, as the computing system verifies not only the user's identity based on biometric or other encrypted identity data but also evaluates the user's historical trustworthiness using verification and veto tokens stored on an immutable ledger, and concludes that the claimed invention reflects a specific and practical implementation of a computer .
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mentioned above the elements of the claims performed by using the computer components. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
13 In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “computing system for validating digital ownership in immutable databases”.
14. Claim 1 recites “authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user”. Specifically, claim recites “receiving … a request for accessing a secure resource transmitted from … a user …; transmitting … a request for a … address associated with … the user from… the user, wherein the … assets owned by the user; receiving … the … address; requesting … based on the … address, and receiving … an identifier (ID) token, one or more verification tokens, and one or more veto tokens … based on the … address, wherein the ID token containing a first set of identity data encrypted by an encryption protocol; transmitting … a request for a second set of identity data from … the user; receiving … the second set of identity data; requesting and receiving … a decryption key …; decrypting … the first set of identity data using the decryption key received …; comparing … the first set of identity data and the second set of identity data to determine whether there is a match; determining … a number of the received one or more verification tokens and a number of the received one or more veto tokens; determining … whether to grant the user permission to access the secure resource based on (i) whether comparison indicates a match, (ii) the number of received one or more verification tokens and (iii) the number of received one or more veto tokens; responsive to determining that the user is to be granted permission to access the secure resource, granting the user permission to access the secure resource; … to generate a verification token and store the verification token …; and responsive to determining that the user is not to be granted permission to access the secure resource, denying the user permission to access the secure resource; … to generate a veto token and store the veto token …”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
15. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “a computing system”, “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a client device”, “an immutable database”, “wallet”, “a digital wallet”, “the digital wallet restoring digital assets”, “causing the immutable database to generate a verification token”, and “causing the immutable database to generate a veto token” do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Further, with regard to “wherein the digital wallet restoring digital assets owned by the user”, “causing the immutable database to generate a verification token”, and “causing the immutable database to generate a veto token” the claim does not describe how “restoring” and “causing” are performed (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) nor is the “digital wallet” an element of the claimed system (e.g., one or more processors, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a client device, an immutable database). With respect to the limitation “transmitting… a request for a wallet address associated with a digital wallet of the user from the client device of the user…”, the language “for a wallet address…” does no more than describe the request sent and is therefore insufficient for providing a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
16. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
17. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
18. Dependent claim 2 further describes the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user, as recites “wherein the first set of identity data comprises a set of … data, and the steps comprising: causing the user …; and comparing the scanned set of … data with the set of … data contained in the ID token to determine whether there is a match in response to receiving the scanned … data of the user from …”. The additional elements such as “biometric” and “causing the user to scan a set of biometric data at the client device or at a gate system” do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “causing the user to scan a set of biometric data at the client device or a gate system”, the claim is silent as to what “causing the user to scan a set of biometric data” comprises, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 3 further describes the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user, as it recites “determining whether the first set of identity data …; requesting … from… of the user in response to determining that the first set of identity data …; and … the first set of identity data with … in response to receiving …”. The additional elements such as “the first set of identity data is encrypted”, “a decryption key”, and “decrypting the first set of identity data” represent mathematical concepts, “if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); MPEP 2106.04 II A (2).
Dependent claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user, as recites “receiving a plurality of ID tokens from …”. The additional element such as “the immutable database” represents the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 5 further describes the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user, as recites “wherein the plurality of ID tokens comprises a first ID token and a second ID token, the first ID tokens contains a first set of identity data, and the second ID token contains a second set of identity data”.
Dependent claim 6 further describes the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user, as recites “wherein the plurality of ID tokens comprises a first ID tokens and a second ID token, the first ID token contains a set of identity data, the second ID token contains a pointer, linking to the first set of identity data contained in the first ID token, and verification data associated with the first ID token”.
Dependent claim 7 further describes the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user, as recites “determining whether the plurality of ID tokens are linked to each other in response to determining that a plurality of ID tokens are received; and returning an error indicating failed token linkage in response to determining that the plurality of ID tokens are not linked to each other”.
Dependent claim 8 further describes the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user, as recites “requesting a verification token from … wherein the verification token was generated during a previous verification process; and … to prove that the user has control over…; wherein granting the user permission to access the secure resource further based in part on the verification token or proving that the user has control over …”. The additional elements such as “the client device”, “the wallet”, “the immutable database”, and “causing the client device to prove that the user has control over the wallet” do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “causing the client device to prove that the user has control over the wallet”, Applicant neither claims technical details regarding how “causing the client device to prove that the user has control over the wallet” is accomplished nor the computer system accomplishes the result (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 9 further describes the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user, as recites “wherein … to prove that the user has control over … comprises: requesting an access token from … associated with the address …; requesting content …; applying the access token to the content … to determine that the access token is valid; and determining that an identity of the user matches an identity of an owner …”. The additional elements such as “causing the client device to prove that the user has control over the wallet”, “the immutable database”, “the wallet”, and “the client device” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “causing the client device to prove that the user has control over the wallet”, Applicant neither claims technical details regarding how “causing the client device to prove that the user has control over the wallet” is accomplished nor the computer system accomplishes the result (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 10 further describes the abstract idea of authorizing a transaction based on the reputation of a user, as recites “wherein the … data includes one or more of … data …”. The additional elements such as “biometric”, “a fingerprint”, “a facial recognition”, “a retinal scan”, and “a voice print” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, therefore, do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Conclusion
19. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
20. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
21. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
22. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New matter
23. Claim 1 recites “transmitting … wherein the digital wallet restoring digital assets owned by the user”.
24. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
25. Claims 2-10 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 due to their dependency.
26. 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.
27. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Unclear scope
28. Claim 1 recites “A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium … cause the one or more processors to perform steps, comprising: receiving…; transmitting…; receiving…; requesting…; transmitting…; receiving…; requesting…; decrypting…; comparing…; determining…; determining…”.
According to the preamble, underlined steps are performed by the “one or more processors”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the underlined steps performed by the “one or more processors” alone or the other components of the “computing system”. client device” or a combination of the two.
29. Claim 1 recites “granting the user permission to access the secure resource” and “denying the user permission to access the secure resource”.
According to the preamble, “granting” and “denying” steps are performed by the “one or more processors”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “granting” and “denying” steps are attributed to the “one or more processors”, the “computing system”, or a combination or the two.
30. “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” MPEP 2173.02 I.
31. Claims 2-10 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 because claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 due to their dependency.
Conclusion
32. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190356641A1 – Isaacson et al. – Discloses methods for providing social media payments including cryptocurrency payments within a social media entity or social media environment wherein the social media environment can be an application having a cryptocurrency wallet integrated therein or a social media website that coordinates with a cryptocurrency wallet to easily enable payments using a cryptocurrency at least in part of the process.
US20220393875A1 – Shrinivasan et al. – Discloses an apparatus for receiving a request to verify a first encrypted document from a computing device, retrieving a second set of encrypted tokens of a second encrypted document from a blockchain, determining a similarity value of the first encrypted document.
US20200169483A1 – Kursun – Discloses a system for a pattern-based examination and detection of malfeasance through dynamic graph network flow analysis.
US20190220859A1 – Weight et al. – Discloses a computing system comprising at least one network interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and configured to communicate with at least one vault system, each of the at least one vault system storing a respective one of N private keys or key components associated with a customer.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
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, Calvin L Hewitt II can be reached at 571-272-6709. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/CALVIN L HEWITT II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights