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 .
Examiner’s Note: The applicant’s speciation [0050, 0119] does not mention or provide any examples implying that the claimed processor could be interpreted as a virtual processor or that it could be implemented in software, thus the examiner is considering the claimed processor as a hardware processor and not being directed to software per se.
Claim Objections
Claim2 objected to because of the following informalities: The applicant recites an acronym (Captcha) without defining it in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites the limitation computer program product which may be interpreted as a signal or carrier wave. This does not fall under one of the four statutory categories. It is recommended that applicant use language such as: non-transitory computer readable medium, computer readable storage device, physical storage device, or computer readable medium not including a signal.
Dependent claim(s) 2-18 is/are rejected for the same reasons as they do not cure the deficiency of the independent claim(s).
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.
Claims1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, 19 and 20, the applicant recites “securely” store but does not indicate how or in what means “securely” refers to. Is the data encrypted? Is it stored in an encrypted database? Is the storing in a physically armed or secured building?
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, the applicant is analyzing a token to determine if the uses is “human” by performing a “verifiably human action.” It is unclear who is verifying the user action, by what means this is done and what “verifiably” refers to. For example, the dependent claims refer back to actions of which could possibly be done by a robot or trained animals (i.e., placing weights, connecting circuits). This would not be a verifiable user action. Likewise, biometrics are not a human action, rather a measure of human characteristics or features. Verifiably human is not clear within the language. Furthermore, the applicant recites “determine when the first user is human.” Can the first user be both human and non-human? What happens in the alternative when the first user is not human. Since this is a conditional statement, the applicant should recite both conditions. The “performance” of the human action is unclear if the user is acting on the action, observing, completing or measuring it.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 19, and 20, the recites the limitation "verification token.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed this is referring back to the “use-limited verification token.” The applicant should refer back to the token in a consistent manner (I.e., just as use limited token or verification token.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, the applicant recites a “use limited verification token,” which is unclear as to how the token is limited. Is it limited by a user, a time, a action, a parameter?
Regarding claim 2-5, the applicant recites the verifiably human action is measuring a parameter with a biometric sensor. Is this a measurement of the first user? The first user measuring another user? The measurement should be of the first user to prove the user is human but this is not clear in the language.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant recites the verifiably human action is answering a question wrong. Is this being executed by the first user? The first user questioning another? The action should be of the first user to prove the user is human but this is not clear in the language.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant recites the verifiably human action is placing a weight. Is this being executed by the first user? The action should be of the first user to prove the user is human but this is not clear in the language.
Regarding claim 8, the applicant recites the verifiably human action is connecting component. Is this being executed by the first user? The action should be of the first user to prove the user is human but this is not clear in the language.
Regarding claim 9, the applicant recites an analysis dependent upon a filtering oof rules. It is unclear how the rules confirm or deny whether a user is human or not.
Regarding claim 10-11, the applicant recites the verifiably human action is typing a phrase. Is this being executed by the first user? The action should be of the first user to prove the user is human but this is not clear in the language.
Regarding claim 19, the applicant recites structure that is inactive in the claims. This is indefinite as the function or use of the structure is unknown. For example the applicant recites a server communication link, server processor, server operating system, node communication link, and a node processor all without achieving some use or function within the claim. It is recommended to the applicant to actively recite a use or function of each component, for example “ a server communication link to communication instructions…”
Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to for containing allowable subject matter if overcome outstanding rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, Hoffberg (US 7,813,822), discloses intelligent electronic appliance preferably includes a user interface, data input and/or output port, and an intelligent processor. A preferred embodiment comprises a set top box for interacting with broadband media streams, with an adaptive user interface, content-based media processing and/or media metadata processing, and telecommunications integration. An adaptive user interface models the user, by observation, feedback, and/or explicit input, and presents a user interface and/or executes functions based on the user model. A content-based media processing system analyzes media content, for example audio and video, to understand the content, for example to generate content-descriptive metadata. A media metadata processing system operates on locally or remotely generated metadata to process the media in accordance with the metadata, which may be, for example, an electronic program guide, MPEG 7 data, and/or automatically generated format. A set top box preferably includes digital trick play effects, and incorporated digital rights management features.
The prior art, Slack (US 2026/0004350), discloses a distributed ledger-based platform for generating and trading carbon NFTs representing carbon credit projects. The carbon NFTs each represent 1 ton of carbon emissions and are able to be traded in real-time. In one embodiment, the platform produces at least one non-fungible token (NFT) representing carbon credits, wherein the at least one NFT includes a carbon credit issuance serial number, a name of the associated project, a location (e.g., geospatial coordinates) of the project, a project start date, a project end date, a project duration, a company associated with the project, at least one image of the project, and/or an expiration date for the carbon credit.
The prior art, Arvanaghi (US 12,271,898), discloses the use of stable value digital assets and/or fiat-backed digital assets as cryptocurrencies that can be linked to other digital assets using blockchain technology and/or through a peer-to-peer network. In embodiments, the present invention relates to specific applications of fiat-backed digital assets and/or stable value digital asset tokens tied to a peer-to-peer network, such as a blockchain network.
The prior art, Kumar (US 2025/0023714), discloses securely harvesting and distributing trusted metadata from devices to artificial intelligence (AI) systems. It enables use of cryptographic hashes and signatures on data for supply chain provenance. It is an agentless method to enhance application security by design, and data protection with data authenticity and confidentiality in device to upstream services communications and data sharing. It helps securely harvest, filter, and forward device metadata to webhooks for AI/ML driven data analytics.
The prior art, Ardhanari et al (US 12,182,311), discloses generating a dictionary data filter for data deidentification is disclosed. The apparatus includes at least processor and a memory communicatively connected to the processor. The memory instructs the processor to receive a plurality of user data. The memory instructs the processor to generate contextual data as a function of the plurality of user data. The memory instructs the processor to identify a plurality of patient identifiers and a plurality of localized terms within the plurality of user data. The memory instructs the processor to generate a dictionary data filter as a function of the plurality of localized terms. The memory instructs the processor to identify one or more misidentified patient identifiers within the plurality of patient identifiers using the dictionary data filter. The memory instructs the processor to modify the plurality of patient identifiers as a function of the one or more misidentified patient identifiers.
The prior art, Schneider et al (US 2024/0170113), discloses verified secure biometric collection system and method for collecting and recording data from a user associated with a secure transaction, includes a storage device, user input interface, camera, biometric scanner, camera encoder to combine/hash the user image into combined data sets that are stored in the storage device, a biometric encoder to process the biometric scan into biometric template data sets and store them in the storage device. The system includes at least one of a human witness and non-human digital witness, the non-human digital witness having access to sensor inputs and software, to verify that the user is a person, and a privacy encoder to combine and encrypt the data sets into encrypted data sets memorializing the secure transaction. The system produces a secure transaction copy including encrypted data sets, and purges of all the user data collected once the copy of the secure transaction is produced.
The prior art, Slowiak et al (US 11,888,849), discloses an identity network for validating the digital identity of a user based on identity provider validation for relying parties. The identity network may receive a request to validate a user that includes attributes of the user and a device identifier of the device the user is using to access the relying party. The identity network may identify an identity provider for the user based on the device identifier or attributes of the user. The identity network may launch the identity provider application through the relying party application integration of a software development kit. Upon launch, the user may authenticate himself through the identity provider, and the identity provider may provide a second set of attributes of the user to compare with the user provided attributes. The identity network can provide a confidence score to the relying party based on the comparison of the user attribute values.
The prior art, Slack et al (US 2023/0139137), discloses a distributed ledger-based platform for buying and selling carbon NFTs representing carbon credits. The carbon NFTs each represent 1 ton of carbon emissions and are able to be traded in real-time. In one embodiment, the platform produces at least one non-fungible token (NFT) representing carbon credits, wherein the at least one NFT includes a carbon credit issuance serial number, a name of the associated project, a location (e.g., geospatial coordinates) of the project, a project start date, a project end date, a project duration, a company associated with the project, at least one image of the project, and/or an expiration date for the carbon credit.
The prior art, Bennison (US 11,405,189), discloses convenient and trustworthy user authentication with a computing device combining four authentication factors through use of a remote authentication system (RAS). An identity token (Device-ID) cryptographically bound to the user's computing device is generated as a first authentication factor. A password known only to the user is a second factor. Cryptographic signatures generated from the user's biometric minutiae is a third factor. A random challenge received from the RAS is a fourth factor. An encryption key-generation key is created cryptographically using the Device-ID and stored locally, which together with the user's cryptographic signatures are encrypted with a one-time-pad encryption key obtained from the RAS on a communication channel different from that used for other communication between the device and the RAS to provide perfect secrecy, then transmitted from the device to the RAS on a connection therebetween to register said shared-secrets.
The prior art, Zhang(US 2022/0232010), discloses authorizing access to a protected resource. One method involves an authorization service automatically assigning a unique alias to a web application and thereafter receiving a request for access to a protected resource on behalf of a user of the web application. In response to the request, the authorization service generates a graphical user interface (GUI) display including a graphical representation of the unique alias automatically assigned to the web application at a client device associated with the user, and thereafter in response to user selection of a GUI element of the GUI display to authorize access, the authorization service obtains an access token associated with the user and the protected resource and transmits the access token to the web application.
The prior art, Engan et al (US 11,095,455), discloses techniques that improve upon the use of authentication tokens as a means of verifying a user identity. Rather than facilitating the issuance of authentication tokens as bearer tokens, whereby any user may present an authentication token to a secure service provider for access to secure service, this disclosure describes techniques for generating recursive authentication tokens that are digitally signed by an Identity Service Provider (IDP) and the entity that purports to present the authentication token to the service provider. Additionally, a recursive token application is described that is configured to nest preceding authentication tokens that trace back to an initial secure service request. For example, a recursive authentication token received by a second service provider may include, nested therein, the first service provider recursive authentication token and a preceding client recursive authentication token that is associated with the initial secure service request.
The prior art, Smullen et al (US 2018/0212904), discloses systems and methods join a user to a primary communication channel that is associated with an automated human interface module. The automated human interface module includes a plurality of nodes. A message including a text communication is posted by the user and sent to a decision module associated with a plurality of classifiers. The decision module is configured to identify a node that best matches the text communication in accordance with the plurality of classifiers. Each respective classifier produces a respective classifier result thereby producing a plurality of classifier results. Each respective classifier result identifies a respective node of the plurality of nodes best matching the text communication. The plurality of classifier results is collectively considered, and the node best matching the text communication is identified and the text communication is sent to the identified node.
The prior art, Carnahan et al (US 2014/0278610), discloses interaction pattern associated mapping schemes are used to classify users of ticket distribution system and, more particularly, to provide unique interaction for the users. Different classes and/or scores may be assigned to users based on their interaction and/or profiles. The interface of the ticket distribution system for one or more classes or classes is modified during the purchase process according to the characterization of the user's interaction and other information.
The prior art, Prince et al (US 2012/0324113), discloses that a domain name is received from a customer. DNS is queried for multiple possible subdomains of the domain. For each subdomain that resolves, information about that subdomain's corresponding resource record is stored in a zone file that also includes a resource record for the domain name. The zone file is presented to the customer. A designation from the customer of which of the resource records are to point to an IP address of a proxy server is received. The resource records are modified according to the input of the customer and the zone file is propagated including the modified resource records.
The prior art, Hoffberg (US 7,813,822), discloses an intelligent electronic appliance preferably includes a user interface, data input and/or output port, and an intelligent processor. A preferred embodiment comprises a set top box for interacting with broadband media streams, with an adaptive user interface, content-based media processing and/or media metadata processing, and telecommunications integration. An adaptive user interface models the user, by observation, feedback, and/or explicit input, and presents a user interface and/or executes functions based on the user model. A content-based media processing system analyzes media content, for example audio and video, to understand the content, for example to generate content-descriptive metadata. A media metadata processing system operates on locally or remotely generated metadata to process the media in accordance with the metadata, which may be, for example, an electronic program guide, MPEG 7 data, and/or automatically generated format. A set top box preferably includes digital trick play effects, and incorporated digital rights management features.
The prior art, Ziv et al (US 2006/0265340), discloses that authorize a transaction between a host and a server, a token is operationally connected to the host. The host receives an identification credential of a user. The identification credential is verified by the token and/or by the server. If the token detects a prescribed human action, the token generates token authentication data and the host sends the token authentication data to the server. Upon receiving the authentication data, the server authenticates the transaction. A device for authenticating a transaction includes a device interface for interacting with a host, a connector for reversibly operationally connecting the device to the host, and a controller that authenticates the transaction only once, contingent on detecting a prescribed anonymous human action. One such human action is providing one or more inputs at the host's user interface synchronously with outputs at the device's user interface.
However, none of the prior arts of record, either alone or in combination, discloses all the limitations of the independent claim, 1, 19, and 20, including, but not limited to "creating, by a human verification program on a central server, a principal token; securely storing the principal token in a database on the central server; assigning the principal token to a plurality of users; receiving a request from a second user from the plurality of users to verify that a first user from the plurality of users is human; providing the principal token to the first user; receiving a secondary token from the first user, wherein the secondary token is created by the first user performing a verifiably human action; appending the secondary token to the principal token to create a use-limited verification token; analyzing the verification token to determine when the first user is human; and when the first user is determined to be human, transmitting the determination and use-limited verification token to the second user.” Therefore, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are allowable over the prior arts of record. Likewise, the associated claims which depend from independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on the independent claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). In the instant case, the applicant should address the claims objection, 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art, James et al (US 12,141,871), discloses the use of a stable value digital asset to pay dividends for securities and other financial instruments tied to a blockchain.
The prior art, James et al (US 2022/0253842), discloses modifying a supply of stable value digital asset tokens tied to a blockchain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDALL DOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (EST).
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/KENDALL DOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436