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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received September 22, 2025. No Claim(s) have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-17 and 19-20 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission has been entered.
Priority
Application No. 18/234,240 filed 08/15/2023 is a Continuation of 17582905 , filed 01/24/2022, now abandoned 17582905 is a Continuation of 16365145 , filed 03/26/2019.
Applicant Name/Assignee: American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc.
Inventor(s): Markikar Upendra et al
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments in response to the objection of the drawings for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) is sufficient to overcome the objection to the drawings. The examiner withdraws the objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed September, 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that the claimed subject matter under step 2A prong 2 is patent eligible. Specifically, applicant argues that the claimed limitations improve the technical field of electronic transaction completion and integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant points to MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.04(d) and the additional elements in the claim which includes “computer based system”, “merchant device”, “user device”, “peer-to-peer network” and emphasizes the provision of the trust score operations including inputting data to the predictive model and outputting the adjusted trust score before completion of the interaction and preventing interaction based on trust score indicating risk with the interaction and sending the adjusted trust score to the user device. Applicant argues that the process of preventing interactions based on recalculated trust score the claimed subject matter provide specification asserted improvement to the technical field of prevention of interactions. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant has not explained how collecting data, analyzing data and outputting the result or transmitting data actually prevents interaction or improves upon any of the underlying technology (“computer based system”, “merchant device”, “user device”, “peer-to-peer network”). The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to the USPTO example 47 claim 3, and pointing to MPEP 2106.04(d)(III) and 2106.05(a), which used a ML model to detect network anomalies after which the source address is determined from malicious network packets of the anomalies so that the source address can be blocked and network malicious network packets dropped. Applicant argues that example 47 found patent eligibility because of the recitation of use of the ML model and its detecting of anomalies in network traffic. The analysis of example 47 provided an improvement to the technical field of network instruction detection by detecting network intrusions and takes remedial actions (blocking and dropping). The background of the specification of example 47 arguing that the “detecting of anomalies in network traffic is not a mental process. Example 47 does not recite hardware to perform the improvement to computer networks only “a computer” performing “generic computer functions” in claim 3 of example 47. Example 47, claim 3, is directed toward machine learning which is also high level in the limitations. The improvement that results from the additional elements dropping/blocking packets flagged as identified from source address is found asserted in the specification and reflected in the limitations. The claim reflection of the specification asserted improvement in the claims as a whole include additional elements reciting a judicial exception. Applicant argues the claim limitations similarly recite improvement to computer technology by implementing automated transaction evaluations. The improvement is not risk mitigation but rather the computer systems by permitting them to perform transaction evaluation task with greater speed and operations. Applicant points to the specification para 0014 which discloses recalculation of the trust score before each transaction and para 0050 which discloses the generation of the trust score before each transaction or in a defined period allowing merchant to decline a second transaction the same day by authorizing a first transaction in response to data changing or negatively impacting user’s trust score. The prevention of interaction based on the adjusted trust score indicating risk with the interaction improves computer security in a manner similar to example 47 claim 3. This is because the dropping to malicious network packets and blocking future traffic from the source address of example 47 is similar to the financial evaluation of claim 1 prevention of interaction based on adjusted trust score indicating risk with the interaction. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In example 47, claim 3 the limitations where to address the difficulty in anomaly detection where a system must define the boundary between ordinary and anomalous data, classify the data as ordinary or anomalous data as small variations may trigger identification of an anomaly or anomalous data may appear as ordinary activity. Example 47, provided an improvement in the capability of the computer to accurately identify anomalies as compared to traditional methods of anomaly detection. The automatic detection of network intrusions/malicious attacks allow for automatic proactive remediation of network attacks in the technology itself. This improves the network transmission of data by avoiding delays in waiting for network administers to react to a network intrusion in the network traffic. This is not the case of the current application. The generated trust scores do not measure a process that is related to the transaction technology itself, but rather provide a measure of the behavior of the customer in order to mitigate transaction risk for the merchant. The claimed technology is merely applied to generate the risk score, which is provided to the merchant for action and not to protect the technology or improve upon the capability of any underlying technology. Example 47 is not applicable.
In the remarks applicant points to the USPTO 101 2019 guidance example 42, where example 42 recites a method for transmission of alert notification to relevant users when patient records are updated. Example 42 when considered as a whole provided improvement to systems by providing a process which collected data, converted the data and consolidates data from different sources into a standardized format, stores it in storage devices and generates messages notifying providers or patients when information is updated. The process reflected an improvement by ensuring each of a group of health care providers are given immediate notice and access to changes so they can adapt medical diagnostic and treatment strategy in accordance with other provider actions. Applicant argues that the current claimed subject matter similarly improves systems by implementing automated transaction evaluations, providing trust score recalculation and provision before transactions are completed. Applicant points to the specification para 0014 which discloses recalculation of the trust score before each transaction and para 0050 which discloses the generation of the trust score before each transaction or in a defined period allowing merchant to decline a second transaction the same day by authorizing a first transaction in response to data changing or negatively impacting user’s trust score, as support that the specification asserts improvement to automated transaction systems transaction evaluation by performing the evaluation with greater speed and reduced time. Accordingly the automated transaction evaluation system claimed is similar to example 42 with respect to patent eligible subject matter when viewing the claim limitation collectively as a whole. Applicant argues the present rejection of claim 1 does not provide distinction between analysis of claim 1 example 42 in view of the USPTO guidance. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Example 42 provides a process for addressing a problem in data management of current system with different formats when data is updated which is a problem rooted in the technology itself as different operating system have different formats that make the sharing of data between entities problematic. Example 42, solves the problem by converting updated data inputted in non-standardize format into a standardized format that is stored and then generating and transmitting a message when the updated data is stored improving upon data management system by allowing information to be shared in a standardized format regardless of the formation applied when the data was inputted. The current limitations are not an attempt to improve upon a problem rooted in the technology itself. Instead the current limitations are directed toward as argued by the applicant, where the applicant points to the specification para 0014 which discloses recalculation of the trust score before each transaction and para 0050 which discloses the generation of the trust score before each transaction or in a defined period allowing merchant to decline a second transaction the same day by authorizing a first transaction in response to data changing or negatively impacting user’s trust score, which makes clear that the focus of the process is not to solve a problem rooted in technology as found in example 42, but rather to analyze customer behavior to generate a risk score that is transmitted to the merchant to reduce transaction risk based on human behavior. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to ex parte Benkreira found patent eligible for providing “improve bank transaction authentication process” provide additional limitations including a “server, network, client device and ATM with the server over the network from the ATM which integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements in combination improved the authentication process improving security. Applicant argues that the current limitations similarly recite a combination of computer elements including a computer based system, merchant device, user device and peer to peer network, improving transaction evaluation increasing the security of the transaction which is not distinguishable from Benkreira. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In the ex parte Benkreira decision found patent eligibility when considering the claim limitations in light of the specification. The specification problem in technology as disclosed by the specification is the difficulty in reversing transfers of funds from financial accounts of financial institutions. The claim limitations of ex parte Benkreira provides a technical solution with a particular technical process for requiring additional authentication which included incorporating the technology itself in the authentication process (identifying the ATM and geolocation of the client device and ATM and requiring the client device to authenticate the transfer at the ATM) (spec. ¶ 33-34). This is not the case of the current application. The additional elements (computer based system) are not incorporated within the trust score calculation. Although the claim does recite the additional element “predictive model” applied to receive data, apply weights and determine the trust score using inputted data and adjusting the trust score based on previous failed interactions compared to weighted keywork of reputational information, the claimed model amount to no more than mere instructions to analyzed inputted data, calculate a value representing a risk measurement of human behavior and output the result. Accordingly the additional elements do not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, as found in ex parte Benkreira, because the additional elements are merely applied to perform the abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed September, 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references fail to teach the amended limitation "the inputting of the reputational information, the historical interaction information, and the user record to the predictive model is performed dynamically based on the receiving the interaction information and the outputting of the adjusted trust score is performed before completion of the interaction." Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The prior art reference McCown teaches Col 0013 wherein the prior art teaches maintaining interactions between identities and applications by a process for calculating reputation scores where the user enrolls in reputation system without requiring interaction between parties where the reputation system collects reputation data, passes it to blockchain holding queue after personal identify submitted while the reputation scoring module generates initial reputation score and digital identity data updated causing recalculation or reputation score in response to the enrollment (not an interaction completion between parties; Col 15 lines 10-32, col 16 lines 6-33, Col 20 lines 34-43 wherein the prior art teaches connecting the reputation services to third party application for open access to the reputation systems)
Applicant's arguments are moot in light of the new ground of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant's amendments. Based on an updated search of the art, a new reference was used in the rejection below. The arguments include:
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references fail to teach the amended limitations “[wherein] the user device comprises a blockchain interface configured to access a blockchain node assigned to the user device, and [wherein] the blockchain node assigned to the user device is addressable using a public key of the user device" of claim 2 and 11.
In the remarks applicant argues that based on the deficiencies of rejection of the independent claims and claims 2 and 11, claims 2-3, 7-8, 11-12 and 15 are allowable over the prior art references. The examiner respectfully disagrees, applicant is arguing limitations that have not been prosecuted, see response below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-8; Claim(s) 11 and 15 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 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.
In reference to claim(s) 2 and 11:
Claim(s) 2 and 11 recite the limitation “preventing, by the computer-based system, the interaction by sending the public key of the user device to the merchant device” which was not in possession of the original presentation of the written disclosure and thus is new matter. The specification has possession of:
[0005] In various embodiments, the systetn may encrypt the dynamic trust score with a
private key. The system may store the dy'1Wmic trust score on a digital identity management
blockchain. The system may transnrit a public key to the merchant The public key may be
associated \Vith the private key. The merchant may use the public key to retrieve the
dynamic trust score from the digital identity management blockchain.
[0030]… The digital identity wallet may serve as a blockchain interface accessible by users and applications installed on the consu1.ner device 113. For example, the digital identity wallet may be configured lo register the consumer device 113 with the blockchain, request public key (e.g., blockchain address) and private key pairs from DLT network 201, and/or otherwise access and interact \Vith blockchain account information.
[0048] The trust score provider may \\.Tite a digital identity entity including the dynamic trust score to the digital identity database (step 306). In various embodiments, the trust score provider may create an asy11m1t~hic key pair, including a private key and a public key. The trust score provider may generate the asymmetric key pair using any suitable technique and asymmetric algorithm, such as, for example, RSA, DSA, elliptic curve cryptography, or the like. The trust score provider may encrypt and store the private key. The trust score provider
may transmit the public key to the consumer device and/or the merchant, which may encrypt and store locally the public key. In various embodiments, the trust score provider may also encrypt and store locally the public key. In various embodiments. the trust score provider may write the digital identity entity to the digital identity management DLT network. In that regard, the public key may comprise a blockchain address.
[0049] The trust score provider may transmit the dynamic trust score to the merchant (step 306). In various embodiments, the trust score provider may transmit the dynamic trust score directly to the merchant, such as via an API between the trust score provider and the merchant. In various embodiments, the trust score provider may transmit the dynamic trust score to the merchant via the consumer device. In various embodiments, the trnst score provider may transmit the public key to the merchant, either via the API or via the consumer
device. The trust score provider may then use the public key to retrieve the dynamic trn. s. ;t
score from the digital identity database.
Please note there is no possession of preventing any action by sending a public key to any entity. Dependent claim(s) 7 and 8 depend upon claim 2; and dependent claim 15 depend upon claim 11 and contain the same deficiencies as found in claim(s) 2 and 11. res. Therefore, Claim(s) 2 and 7-8; Claim(s) 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-9:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method steps (1) receiving interaction information and a request likelihood for user to complete interaction (2) determining…reputational information (3) retrieving data (4) inputting historical data and user record into a model (5) apply weight to a keyword of reputational data (6) determine trust score (7) adjust trust score (8) output adjusted trust score (9) preventing interaction based on adjusted trust score. The wherein clause does not remove the limitations from mental processes as the wherein clause merely determines when the data is analyzed and the results outputted.
The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic algorithm, merchant device, user device and computer. The claimed physical and/or computer elements (computer based system, user device and predictive model) are generic computer components and tools to perform the mental processes. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates functions that could reasonable be performed using mental concepts, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
That is, other than reciting the operations being performed “by a computer based system” and “a predictive model”, nothing in the claim limitations precludes the recited steps from practically being performed in the mind. The steps recite steps that can easily be performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of obtain data which mimics mental processes of observation. The steps (1) receiving and (3) retrieving mimics mental processes of observation. The steps (2) determining information (4) inputting historical data and user record into a model (5) applies weight to a keyword of reputational data (6) determines trust score (7) adjust trust score- mimics mental processes of analyzing data for use and then observing, remembering data which is analyzed where specific data information is given more importance and calculating a trust score that is adjusted – mimics mental process of using the mental process of analyzing data where certain data is give more importance and the data as a whole is given a measure, which is adjusted based on giving different importance to data analyzed. The limitation (9) “preventing …interaction “ mimics mental concept of decision to not perform an action. Therefore, the limitations, mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation and opinion, and communication of result which, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TL! Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The Specification is titled “Dynamic Trust Score”, and discusses in the background addressing the negative consequences for merchants when establishing a relationship/transaction with a consumer (see background). The specification disclose that to address the problem may receive a trust score request that has been calculated for a transaction based on the transaction data, merchant data, third party data and the user data to be utilized by the merchant to authorize the transaction.(spec para 0003). Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification describes that it also is challenging for merchants to determine whether a client is worthy for a transaction process. Accordingly, when considered as a whole and in light of the specification, the claimed subject matter is directed toward receiving, analyzing user data in order to determine a score representing the level of trust for facilitating authorization of interactions. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of analyzing business behaviors. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of commercial behaviors. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a merchant device, user device, computer-based system, distributive ledger, peer-to-peer network and predictive model. ,
The additional element “computer-based system” applied to perform the operation “receiving…interaction information”, “retrieving…user record”, and “inputting …information” to a model. The additional element “predictive model” applied to perform the operation “output adjusted score”
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
The claim limitations (receiving, retrieving, inputting, outputting) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation and thus are insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “computer-based system” to perform at a high level the operations “determining…reputational information”
The additional element “predictive model” to perform at a high level the operation “apply a weight to a keyword”, “determine a trust score” based on human behavior and “preventing the interaction based on adjusted trust score indicating risk”
The system is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic system processor. The steps performed by the processor is generally used to apply the abstract idea. The system processor only recites outcomes of “apply weight”, “determines trust score”, “adjust trust score” without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the system processor at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations (1)-(3) and (4) are directed toward inputting gathered data into a model for analysis- directed toward mere data gathering and analysis. The combination of limitations (1)-(4) and (5)-(8) are directed toward manipulating data for analyzing risk to generate a risk score- mere data analysis for risk mitigation. The combination of limitations (1)-(8) and (9) –(10) is directed toward outputting the score calculated in steps (1)-(8). The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. . This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Except for the receiving data, step, nothing in the claim is tied to any technology. The limitations “determining …reputation information…”, “retrieving…a user record…”, “inputting…information”, “applies a weight to keyword…”, “determines trust score…”, “outputs…score” and “sending…trust score” which is not tied to any technology and therefore, does not provide the needed significantly more.
The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of inputting collected data, weighting data that is analyzed to determine a risk/trust score that is outputted and sent, which is a process directed toward a business practice. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “embedding” operation is performed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC vAlstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to calculate a trust score and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a merchant device, user device, computer-based system, distributive ledger, peer-to-peer network and predictive model.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a computer based system to perform the operation of receiving data. The limitations “determining …reputation information…”, “retrieving…a user record…”, “inputting…information”, “applies a weight to keyword…”, “determines trust score…”, “outputs…score” and “sending…trust score” which is not tied to any technology and therefore, does not provide the needed significantly more.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a processor to perform the step of receiving data ----is some of the most basic functions of a processor. The wherein clause is not directed toward technology itself but rather directed toward the transaction process sequence.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “generating”, “transmitting”, “intercepting”, identifying”, “determining”, “replacing” and “routing' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
Electric Power Group which held that applying technology to gather data, analyze data and output the result.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Similar to Electric Power Group, the claimed limitations do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display/output of available/result information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The specification make clear that any of a laundry list of learning algorithms can be applied without technical specificity. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. he claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-9 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward applying PKI technology to retrieve and obtain data- well understood technology. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward parsing the textual data to determine the keyword indicating positive/negative connotation with the user- data manipulation. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward data - non-functional descriptive subject matter. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward data content - non-functional descriptive subject matter. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward receiving data and request- insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward storing trust score-insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward encrypting data with a private key and sending a key – well understood and routine application of technology. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward data content - non-functional descriptive subject matter. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-9 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 10-15:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 10 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The functions of system claim 10 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward mental processes and methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The functions of system claim 10 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a memory, at least one processor coupled to the memory to perform the operations corresponding to claim 1–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer system for implementing a method will include a “memory”, “processor coupled to the memory” capable of performing the basic computer functions corresponding to the steps (“receiving”, “determining”, “retrieving”, “inputting”, “applies a weight”, “determines the trust score”, “adjust the trust score”, “outputs the trust score”, “sending…the trust score”) of method claim 1-----is some of the most basic functions of a processor. As a result, none of the system components recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
The functions of system 10 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Similar to Electric Power Group, the claimed limitations do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display/output of available/result information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The specification make clear that any of a laundry list of learning algorithms can be applied without technical specificity. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. he claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 11-14 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 10. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward applying PKI technology to retrieve data. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward parsing the textual data to determine the keyword indicating positive/negative connotation with the user- data manipulation. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward data - non-functional descriptive subject matter. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward receiving data and request- insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward encrypting the trust score, and sending data- well known and understood technology. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 11-15 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 16-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory computer-readable medium, as in independent Claim 16 and the dependent claims. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The instructions of medium claim 16 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward mental processes and methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The instructions of medium claim 16 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a non-transitory computer readable medium manufacture having instructions stored on and executed on a computing device. The instructions corresponding to the operations corresponding to steps of method claim 1–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer readable medium having instructions corresponding to the steps (“receiving”, “determining”, “retrieving”, “inputting”, “applies a weight”, “determines the trust score”, “adjust the trust score”, “outputs the trust score”, “sending…the trust score”) of method claim 1-----is some of the most basic functions of a processor. As a result, none of the instructions recited by the manufacture claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
The instructions of medium claim 16 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as failing to provide additional elements that amount to an inventive concept –i.e. significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, as previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the limitations when considered individually, as a combination of parts or as a whole fail to provide any indication that the elements recited are unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, conventional, routine activity in the field.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Similar to Electric Power Group, the claimed limitations do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display/output of available/result information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The specification make clear that any of a laundry list of learning algorithms can be applied without technical specificity. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. he claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 17-20 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 16. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward parsing the textual data to determine the keyword indicating positive/negative connotation with the user- data manipulation. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward data - non-functional descriptive subject matter. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward receiving data and request- insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward receiving data and the request for trust score is directed toward insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 20 is directed toward encrypting the trust score, and sending data- well known and understood technology. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 16. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 17-20 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 9; Claims 10, 12-14; Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,177,937 B1 by McCown et al. (McCown), in view of WO 2015/192086 by Crane et al. (Crane) and further in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0309752 A1 by Villavicencio et al. (Villa).
In reference to Claim 1:
McCown teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method for securing an interaction between a …[transaction parties] and a user device((McCown) in at least Col 3 lines 1-19) comprising:
receiving, by a computer-based system, interaction information associated with the interaction between the …[transaction parties] and the user device and a request from the user device for a trust score indicative of a likelihood for a user of the user device to complete the interaction ((McCown) in at least FIG. 2, FIG. 4; Col 2 lines 67-Col 3 lines 1-12 wherein the prior art teaches analyzing activities from ratings and reviews submitted by other parties of verified transactions , lines 47-62 wherein the prior art teaches prompting user for information, Col 7 lines 9-53 wherein the prior art teaches gathering information form third party legal service, Col 8 lines 5-29 wherein the prior art teaches gathering information representative of user actions including purchases items, Col 10 lines 33-51 wherein the prior art teaches creating quantifiable reputation based on commerce activities including purchases or sales , Col 14 lines 9-14 wherein the prior art teaches scraping data from public database, commercial database access);
determining, by the computer-based system, based on the request for the trust score, reputational information describing a reputation of the user reputational information describing a reputation of the user at a third-party data source and historical interaction information describing past interactions of the user((McCown) in at least FIG. 2; Col 2 lines 67-Col 3 lines 1-12, lines 47-62, Col 7 lines 9-53, Col 8 lines 22-29, Col 10 lines 33-40, Col 14 lines 9-14);
retrieving, by the computer-based system, from a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of nodes over a peer- to-peer network, a user record indicating that the user’s identity has been verified by a verifying entity ((McCown) in at least FIG. 5, FIG. 6A-B, FIG. 8B; Col 9 lines 52-Col 10 lines 1-25, Col 11 lines 31-46, Col 17 lines 52-62, Col 18 lines 10-22);
inputting, by the computer-based system, to a predictive model the reputational information, the historical interaction information, and the user record, wherein the predictive model ((McCown) in at least FIG. 5, FIG. 6A-B, FIG. 8B; Col 9 lines 52-Col 10 lines 1-25, Col 11 lines 31-46, Col 17 lines 52-62, Col 18 lines 10-22): …
determine the trust score based on the reputational information, the historical interaction information, and the user record ((McCown) in at least FIG. 5, FIG. 6B; Col 8 lines 36-38, Col 13 lines 54-Col 14 lines 1-6, Col 17 lines 5-13) and
adjust the trust score based on at least one data point from a previous failed or negative interaction compared to the weighted [specific measurement] keywords of the reputational information ((McCown) in at least FIG. 2-3; Col 7 lines 19-29 wherein the prior art teaches the user can create and update the reputation with new personal identity score, Col 13 lines 43-67, wherein the prior art teaches personal identity will undertake activity resulting in updated reputation score and teaches reputation data augmented by data collector where the reputation calculation service periodically calculates/recalculates reputation score, Col 15 lines 33-45),
output the adjusted trust score ((McCown) in at least Col 11 lines 45-53, Col 13 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches calculated reputation score is passed into the blockchain holding queue or added by reference for increased privacy, Col 17 lines 50-Col 18 lines 1-60 ); and
wherein the inputting of the reputational information, the historical interaction information, and the user record to the predictive model is performed dynamically based on the receiving the interaction information and the outputting of the adjusted trust score is performed before completion of the interaction ((McCown) in at least Col 0013 wherein the prior art teaches maintaining interactions between identities and applications by a process for calculating reputation scores where the user enrolls in reputation system without requiring interaction between parties where the reputation system collects reputation data, passes it to blockchain holding queue after personal identify submitted while the reputation scoring module generates initial reputation score and digital identity data updated causing recalculation or reputation score in response to the enrollment (not an interaction completion between parties; Col 15 lines 10-32, col 16 lines 6-33, Col 20 lines 34-43 wherein the prior art teaches connecting the reputation services to third party application for open access to the reputation systems) ; and
McCown suggest but does not explicitly teach:
… an interaction between a merchant device and a user device ((McCown) in at least Col 2 lines 67-Col 3 lines 1-12 wherein the prior art teaches analyzing activities from ratings and reviews submitted by other parties of verified transactions, Col 8 lines 5-29 wherein the prior art teaches gathering information representative of user actions including purchases items, Col 10 lines 33-51 wherein the prior art teaches creating quantifiable reputation based on commerce activities including purchases or sales , Col 14 lines 9-14 wherein the prior art teaches scraping data from public database, commercial database access)
receiving, by a computer-based system, interaction information associated with the interaction between the merchant device and the user device…((McCown) in at least Col 2 lines 67-Col 3 lines 1-12 wherein the prior art teaches analyzing online activities from ratings and reviews submitted by other parties of verified transactions, Col 8 lines 5-29 wherein the prior art teaches gathering information representative of user actions including purchases items, Col 10 lines 33-51 wherein the prior art teaches creating quantifiable reputation based on commerce activities including purchases or sales , Col 14 lines 9-14 wherein the prior art teaches scraping data from public database, commercial database access)
Although McCown does not explicitly recite the parties in a transaction as including a merchant, in light of KSR and common sense rationale, based on the prior art providing some teaching, suggestion or motivation that would have led of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art McCown teaches that the data received includes commerce activities of purchases or sales and teaches analyzing activities from ratings and reviews submitted by other parties of verified transactions which suggest and based on knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed invention.
McCown does not explicitly teach:
apply a weight to a keyword of the reputational information based on relevancy to the interaction,
adjust the trust score based on at least one data point from a previous failed or negative interaction compared to the weighted keyword of the reputational information
preventing the interaction based on the adjusted trust score indicating a risk with the interaction, the preventing the interaction comprising sending the adjusted trust score to the user device.
Crane teaches:
apply a weight to a keyword of the reputational information based on relevancy to the interaction ((Crane) in at least para 0045-0047),
adjust the trust score based on at least one data point from a previous failed or negative interaction compared to the weighted keyword of the reputational information ((Crane) in at least FIG. 8C; para 0046, para 0054-0055, para 0057-0058, para 0060-0061, para 0075-0076, para 0087, para 0107-0112, para 0115, para 0120-0124, para 0133,
output the adjusted trust score ((Crane) in at least para 0125, para 0127, para 0136-0137)
According to KSR, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference McCown teaches keyword nodes which are assigned specific reputation measurements (Col 15 lines 33-36). The prior art reference Crane included a similar application (applying weights to keywords for calculating reputation scores) of technology that is analogous to the claimed invention. The prior art Crane provide design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known method (modify the attributes to apply weights to be keyword categories). The prior art Crane provides evidence that the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art McCown where encompassed in known variations or a principle known in the prior art. Therefore, according to common sense rationale, one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The prior art McCown explicitly teaches calculating and outputting on a display a trust/reputation score in order to represent a probabilistic score representing good trust/bad trust to facilitate human understanding of behavior and to minimize false/negative instances when models fail to identify mal-intentioned personal identity (fraudulent). The prior art McCown in combination with Crane teaches that scores representing potential behavior and sending the results in order to display to the user to results of the recalculated score based on received additional information.
Both McCown and Crane are directed toward a process to calculate reputations scores applying keywords and weights when calculating reputation scores. Crane teaches the motivation of applying categories of keywords such as finance, bankruptcy, credit crisis, flood, labor, etc where the categories of keywords are given different weights based on the effect of the category on the merchant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application of keywords and which elements for which weights are applied to calculate reputation scores of McCown to include the application of keywords and weights as taught by Crane since Crane teaches the motivation of applying categories of keywords such as finance, bankruptcy, credit crisis, flood, labor, etc where the categories of keywords are given different weights based on the effect of the category on the merchant.
Both McCown and Crane are directed toward a process to calculate reputations scores and outputs the result. Crane teaches the motivation of outputting the updated calculated reputation score results and sending the results in order to display to the user to results of the recalculated score based on received additional information. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sending of the results of the recalculated score to the database to include sending the results to a user display as taught by Crane since Crane teaches the motivation of outputting the updated calculated reputation score results and sending the results in order to display to the user to results of the recalculated score based on received additional information.
Villa teaches:
preventing the interaction based on the adjusted trust score indicating a risk with the interaction, the preventing the interaction comprising sending the adjusted trust score to the user device.((Villa) in at least Abstract; para 0033, para 0037, para 0040-0041, para 0056-0058)
Both McCown and Villa are directed toward scoring authentication risk. McCown teaches that the embodiments of use for the reputation system includes enabling others of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the reputation generating score system to be modified as are suited to the particular use contemplated. Villa teaches the motivation of applying the risk score in order to determine whether to terminate a transaction process where based on risk score level determines the termination of transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the activity when receiving a risk score for use as taught by McCown to include preventing a transaction as taught by Villa since Villa teaches the motivation of applying the risk score in order to determine whether to terminate a transaction process where based on risk score level determines the termination of transaction.
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of dependent claim 1. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3.
(Currently amended) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising
wherein the reputational information comprises textual review of the user ((McCown) in at least Fig. 6A-E; Col 3 lines 4-7, Col 4 lines 27-35, Col 6 lines 30-37, Col 8 lines 22-29) , the method further comprising:
McCown does not explicitly teach:
parsing the textual review to determine the keyword, wherein the keyword indicates a positive connotation or a negative connotation with the user.
Crane teaches:
parsing (categorize) the textual review to determine the keyword, wherein the keyword indicates a positive connotation or a negative connotation with the user.((Crane) in at least para 0040, para 0046-0047, para 0061, para 0120, para 0123-0124, para 0133)
Both McCown and Crane are directed toward calculating reputation scores and analyzing different categories for which weights can be applied. Crane teaches the motivation of categorizing different that provide negative and positive impact to a business so that the negative and positive calculated weights can be summed to calculate an overall score. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calculation of reputations scores and the categories of McCown to include assigning negative and positive to different categories as taught by Crane since Crane teaches the motivation of categorizing different that provide negative and positive impact to a business so that the negative and positive calculated weights can be summed to calculate an overall score.
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the historical interaction information comprises
at least one of demographic information, an initial risk profile underwriting, a loan history, an indication of timeliness of payments, an interaction dispute history, a revolving interaction account balance, a delinquency history, a fraud score, a credit score, an income level, an education history, or a tax history. ((McCown) in at least Col 4 lines 27-31, Col 14 lines 54-59, Col 18 lines 41-50)
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5.
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
McCown does not explicitly teach:
wherein the historical interaction information comprises at least one of line item information, interaction authorization information, interaction submission information, or recent interaction information.
Crane teach:
wherein the historical interaction information comprises at least one of line item information, interaction authorization information, interaction submission information, or recent interaction information. ((Crane) in at least para 0074, para 0102, para 0118, para 0131-0132)
Both McCown and Crane are directed toward calculating reputation scores applying historical data. Crane teaches the motivation of applying the history of the buyer in order to use the data as part of the data for inputting data elements to calculate the reputation score. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the historical data for calculation of reputations scores of McCown to include the historical data as taught by Crane since Crane teaches the motivation of applying the history of the buyer in order to use the data as part of the data for inputting data elements to calculate the reputation score.
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6
(currently Amended) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the receiving the interaction information and the request from the user device for the trust score is further based on an interaction with a user interface.((McCown) in at least Col 2 lines 54-63, Col 3 lines 1-12, lines 25-37, Col 16 lines 34-45)
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the historical interaction information comprises at least one of
McCown does not explicitly teach:
demographic information, an initial risk profile underwriting, a loan history, an indication of timeliness of payments, an interaction dispute history, a revolving interaction account balance, a delinquency history, a fraud score, a credit score, an income level, an education history, a tax history, line item information, interaction authorization information, interaction submission information, or recent interaction information.
Crane teach:
demographic information, an initial risk profile underwriting, a loan history, an indication of timeliness of payments, an interaction dispute history, a revolving interaction account balance, a delinquency history, a fraud score, a credit score, an income level, an education history, a tax history, line item information, interaction authorization information, interaction submission information, or recent interaction information. ((Crane) in at least para 0074, para 0102, para 0118, para 0131-0132)
Both McCown and Crane are directed toward calculating reputation scores applying historical data. Crane teaches the motivation of applying the history of the buyer in order to use the data as part of the data for inputting data elements to calculate the reputation score. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the historical data for calculation of reputations scores of McCown to include the historical data as taught by Crane since Crane teaches the motivation of applying the history of the buyer in order to use the data as part of the data for inputting data elements to calculate the reputation score.
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 10.
The functions of system claim 10 functional processes correspond to the method steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 10 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include the system ((McCown) in at least FIG. 1, Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-18) to perform the operation that correspond to claim 1 include the structure comprising:
a memory ((McCown) in at least FIG. 1, Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-18);
at least one processor coupled to the memory ((McCown) in at least FIG. 1, Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-18) to perform the operations corresponding to claim 1; and
Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
The prior art McCown explicitly teaches calculating and outputting on a display a trust/reputation score in order to represent a probabilistic score representing good trust/bad trust to facilitate human understanding of behavior and to minimize false/negative instances when models fail to identify mal-intentioned personal identity (fraudulent). The prior art McCown in combination with Crane teaches that scores representing potential behavior and sending the results in order to display to the user to results of the recalculated score based on received additional information.
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12.
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), further comprising
wherein the reputational information comprises textual review of the user ((McCown) in at least Fig. 6A-E; Col 3 lines 4-7, Col 4 lines 27-35, Col 6 lines 30-37, Col 8 lines 22-29) , the operations further comprising:
McCown does not explicitly teach:
parsing the textual review to determine the keyword, wherein the keyword indicates a positive connotation or a negative connotation with the user.
Crane teaches:
parsing (categorize) the textual review to determine the keyword, wherein the keyword indicates a positive connotation or a negative connotation with the user.((Crane) in at least para 0040, para 0046-0047, para 0061, para 0120, para 0123-0124, para 0133)
Both McCown and Crane are directed toward calculating reputation scores and analyzing different categories for which weights can be applied. Crane teaches the motivation of categorizing different that provide negative and positive impact to a business so that the negative and positive calculated weights can be summed to calculate an overall score. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calculation of reputations scores and the categories of McCown to include assigning negative and positive to different categories as taught by Crane since Crane teaches the motivation of categorizing different that provide negative and positive impact to a business so that the negative and positive calculated weights can be summed to calculate an overall score.
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13.
(Currently amended) The system of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the historical interaction information comprises
McCown does not explicitly teach:
at least one of demographic information, an initial risk profile underwriting, a loan history, an indication of timeliness of payments, an interaction dispute history, a revolving interaction account balance, a delinquency history, a fraud score, a credit score, an income level, an education history, a tax history, line item information, interaction authorization information, interaction submission information, or recent interaction information.
Crane teaches:
at least one of demographic information, an initial risk profile underwriting, a loan history, an indication of timeliness of payments, an interaction dispute history, a revolving interaction account balance, a delinquency history, a fraud score, a credit score, an income level, an education history, a tax history, line item information, interaction authorization information, interaction submission information, or recent interaction information. ((Crane) in at least para 0074, para 0102, para 0118, para 0131-0132)
Both McCown and Crane are directed toward calculating reputation scores applying historical data. Crane teaches the motivation of applying the history of the buyer in order to use the data as part of the data for inputting data elements to calculate the reputation score. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the historical data for calculation of reputations scores of McCown to include the historical data as taught by Crane since Crane teaches the motivation of applying the history of the buyer in order to use the data as part of the data for inputting data elements to calculate the reputation score.
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14.
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above),
wherein the receiving the interaction information and the request from the user device for the trust score is further based on an interaction with a user interface. ((McCown) in at least FIG. 6A, FIG. 6C, FIG. 6E; Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-35, Col 20 lines 38-43)
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 16.
The instructions of manufacture claim 16 correspond to the method steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 16 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include the non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions executed by a processor ((McCown) in at least Col 20 lines 44-67) to perform the operation that correspond to claim 1:
Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
According to KSR, common sense rationale, it is obvious to try- when choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art at the time of the invention recognized need to apply computer readable medium memory comprising instructions executed by processors in order to perform operations. There is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need of applying computer readable medium memories storing instructions executed by processors (i.e. transitory and/or non-transitory). Accordingly, since there are only two options for computer readable mediums (transitory/non-transitory) one of ordinary sill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the prior art provides some teaching/suggestion that would have led one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed invention.
The prior art McCown explicitly teaches calculating and outputting on a display a trust/reputation score in order to represent a probabilistic score representing good trust/bad trust to facilitate human understanding of behavior and to minimize false/negative instances when models fail to identify mal-intentioned personal identity (fraudulent). The prior art McCown in combination with Crane teaches that scores representing potential behavior and sending the results in order to display to the user to results of the recalculated score based on received additional information.
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 16. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17.
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the reputational information comprises textual review of the user ((McCown) in at least Fig. 6A-E; Col 3 lines 4-7, Col 4 lines 27-35, Col 6 lines 30-37, Col 8 lines 22-29) , the operations further comprising:
McCown does not explicitly teach:
parsing the textual review to determine the keyword, wherein the keyword indicates a positive connotation or a negative connotation with the user.
Crane teaches:
parsing (categorize) the textual review to determine the keyword, wherein the keyword indicates a positive connotation or a negative connotation with the user.((Crane) in at least para 0040, para 0046-0047, para 0061, para 0120, para 0123-0124, para 0133)
Both McCown and Crane are directed toward calculating reputation scores and analyzing different categories for which weights can be applied. Crane teaches the motivation of categorizing different that provide negative and positive impact to a business so that the negative and positive calculated weights can be summed to calculate an overall score. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calculation of reputations scores and the categories of McCown to include assigning negative and positive to different categories as taught by Crane since Crane teaches the motivation of categorizing different that provide negative and positive impact to a business so that the negative and positive calculated weights can be summed to calculate an overall score.
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 16. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18.
(Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the historical interaction information comprises
McCown does not explicitly teach:
at least one of demographic information, an initial risk profile underwriting, a loan history, an indication of timeliness of payments, an interaction dispute history, a revolving interaction account balance, a delinquency history, a fraud score, a credit score, an income level, an education history, a tax history, line item information, interaction authorization information, interaction submission information, or recent interaction information.
Crane teaches:
at least one of demographic information, an initial risk profile underwriting, a loan history, an indication of timeliness of payments, an interaction dispute history, a revolving interaction account balance, a delinquency history, a fraud score, a credit score, an income level, an education history, a tax history, line item information, interaction authorization information, interaction submission information, or recent interaction information. ((Crane) in at least para 0074, para 0102, para 0118, para 0131-0132)
Both McCown and Crane are directed toward calculating reputation scores applying historical data. Crane teaches the motivation of applying the history of the buyer in order to use the data as part of the data for inputting data elements to calculate the reputation score. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the historical data for calculation of reputations scores of McCown to include the historical data as taught by Crane since Crane teaches the motivation of applying the history of the buyer in order to use the data as part of the data for inputting data elements to calculate the reputation score.
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 16. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19.
(Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above),
wherein the receiving the interaction information and the request from the user device for the trust score is further based on an interaction with a user interface. ((McCown) in at least FIG. 6A, FIG. 6C, FIG. 6E; Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-35, Col 20 lines 38-43)
Claim(s) 2 and 7-8; Claims 11 and 15 of claim 10; and Claim 20 of claim 16 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,177,937 B1 by McCown et al. (McCown), in view of WO 2015/192086 by Crane et al. (Crane) in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0309752 A1 by Villavicencio et al. (Villa) and further in view of US Pub No. 2018/0309581 A1 by Butler et al. (Butler)
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, wherein
the distributed ledger is a blockchain ((McCown) in at least FIG. 4 ref 406, FIG. 5; Col 1 lines 26-35, lines 55-60, Col 6 lines 30-37),
the user device comprises a blockchain interface configured to access a blockchain node, of the blockchain, assigned to the user device ((McCown) in at least Col 14 lines 62-63, Col 15 lines 33-45, lines 54-57, Col 16 lines 6-18, Col 19 lines 16-58),…
the method further comprises:
updating, by the computer based system, the blockchain node assigned to the user device to include the adjusted trust score ((McCown) in at least Col 14 lines 62-65, Col 16 lines 6-18, Col 17 lines 21-62, Col 19 lines 5-57), ,,,
McCown does not explicitly teach:
the blockchain node assigned to the user device is addressable using a public key of the user device,
the user record is retrieved from the blockchain using the public key of the user device, and
providing, by the computer-based system, the public key of the user device to the merchant device, and preventing, by the computer-based system, the interaction by sending the public key of the user device to the merchant device,
wherein the merchant device is configured to retrieve the adjusted trust score from the blockchain using the public key of the user device.
Butler teaches:
the blockchain node assigned to the user device is addressable using a public key of the user device ((Butler) in at least abstract; para 0017 wherein the prior art teaches public key are written to blockchain with information enabling users to locate information, para 0026, para 0030, para 0043),
the user record is retrieved from the blockchain using the public key of the user device ((Butler) in at least para 0043 wherein the prior art teaches using public key to retrieve data from blockchain) , and
providing, by the computer-based system, the public key of the user device to the merchant device … sending the public key of the user device to the merchant device ((Butler) in at least para 0017, para 0019 para 0023-0027, para 0030),
wherein the merchant device is configured to retrieve the adjusted trust score from the blockchain using the public key of the user device ((Butler) in at least para 0017, para 0019 para 0023-0027, para 0029-0030),.
Both McCown and Butler teach utilizing blockchain technology to store transaction and user data where the data is encrypted for security. Butler teaches the motivation of applying pair key technology written to the blockchain in order to enable parties to locate and retrieve information without compromising sensitive biometric user data. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for receiving data stored within blockchain of McCown to include applying PKI technology as taught by Butler since Butler teaches the motivation of applying pair key technology written to the blockchain in order to enable parties to locate and retrieve information without compromising sensitive biometric user data..
Villa teaches:
and preventing, by the computer-based system, the interaction by sending … [retrieving/receiving score risk data] of the user device to the merchant device ((Villa) in at least Abstract; para 0033, para 0037, para 0040-0041, para 0056-0058)
Both McCown and Villa are directed toward scoring authentication risk. McCown teaches that the embodiments of use for the reputation system includes enabling others of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the reputation generating score system to be modified as are suited to the particular use contemplated. Villa teaches the motivation of applying the risk score in order to determine whether to terminate a transaction process where based on risk score level determines the termination of transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the activity when receiving a risk score for use as taught by McCown to include preventing a transaction as taught by Villa since Villa teaches the motivation of applying the risk score in order to determine whether to terminate a transaction process where based on risk score level determines the termination of transaction.
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of McCown, Crane, Villa and Butler discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7.
(Original) The method of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), further comprising
updating, by the predictive model, the adjusted trust score based on preventing the transaction.((McCown) in at least Col 3 lines 4-26 wherein the prior art teaches verified transaction data including transaction completions, lines 33-37 wherein the prior art teaches pattern of transaction are part of the reputation score , Col 6 lines 45-55, Col 7 lines 32-36 wherein the prior art teaches updating reputation score based on past behavior; Col 19 lines 5-15),
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of McCown, Crane, Villa and Butler discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8.
(Original) The method of claim 7 (see rejection claim 7 above), further comprising:
encrypting the adjusted trust score … storing the adjusted trust score on the digital identity management blockchain ((McCown) in at least Col 1 lines 22-35, Col 9 lines 20-24, Col 9 lines 62-Col 10 lines 1-2, Col 18 lines 33-38)
McCown does not explicitly teach:
encrypting the adjusted trust score with a private key prior …; and
sending, to the first device, a public key associated with the private key, wherein the public key facilitates retrieval of the adjusted trust score from the digital identity management blockchain.
Butler teaches:
encrypting the … [data retrieved] with a private key prior to storing the adjusted [data] on the digital identity management blockchain ((Butler) in at least para 0017, para 0019 para 0023-0027, para 0029-0030)
sending, to the first device, a public key associated with the private key, wherein the public key facilitates retrieval of the adjusted trust score from the digital identity management blockchain ((Butler) in at least para 0017, para 0019 para 0023-0027, para 0030),
Both McCown and Butler teach utilizing blockchain technology to store transaction and user data where the data is encrypted for security. Butler teaches the motivation of applying pair key technology written to the blockchain in order to enable parties to locate and retrieve information without compromising sensitive biometric user data. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for receiving data stored within blockchain of McCown to include applying PKI technology as taught by Butler since Butler teaches the motivation of applying pair key technology written to the blockchain in order to enable parties to locate and retrieve information without compromising sensitive biometric user data
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11.
The functions of System claim 11 corresponds to the steps of method claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2.
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of McCown, Crane, Villa and Butler discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15
(Currently Amended) The system of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), the operations further comprising:
encrypting the adjusted trust score with the … of the user device to storing the adjusted trust score on the blockchain. ((McCown) in at least Col 1 lines 22-35, Col 9 lines 20-24, Col 9 lines 62-Col 10 lines 1-2, Col 18 lines 33-38)
McCown does not explicitly teach:
encrypting the adjusted trust score with the public key of the user device…
Butler teaches:
encrypting the … [data retrieved] with a private key prior to storing the adjusted [data] on the digital identity management blockchain ((Butler) in at least para 0017, para 0019 para 0023-0027, para 0029-0030)
Both McCown and Butler teach utilizing blockchain technology to store transaction and user data where the data is encrypted for security. Butler teaches the motivation of applying pair key technology written to the blockchain in order to enable parties to locate and retrieve information without compromising sensitive biometric user data. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for receiving data stored within blockchain of McCown to include applying PKI technology as taught by Butler since Butler teaches the motivation of applying pair key technology written to the blockchain in order to enable parties to locate and retrieve information without compromising sensitive biometric user data
In reference to Claim 20:
The combination of McCown, Crane and Villa discloses the limitations of independent claim 16. Crane further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20.
(Original) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), the operations further comprising:
encrypting the adjusted trust score … prior to storing the adjusted trust score on a blockchain ((McCown) in at least Col 1 lines 22-35, Col 9 lines 20-24, Col 9 lines 62-Col 10 lines 1-2, Col 18 lines 33-38)
McCown teaches:
encrypting the adjusted trust score with the public key of the user device…
Butler teaches:
encrypting the … [data retrieved] with a private key prior to storing the adjusted [data] on the digital identity management blockchain ((Butler) in at least para 0017, para 0019 para 0023-0027, para 0029-0030)
Both McCown and Butler teach utilizing blockchain technology to store transaction and user data where the data is encrypted for security. Butler teaches the motivation of applying pair key technology written to the blockchain in order to enable parties to locate and retrieve information without compromising sensitive biometric user data. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for receiving data stored within blockchain of McCown to include applying PKI technology as taught by Butler since Butler teaches the motivation of applying pair key technology written to the blockchain in order to enable parties to locate and retrieve information without compromising sensitive biometric user data
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CA 3048256 A1 by Rego et al; AU 2014/306440 A1 by Karpenko; CA 2986569 C by Charles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695