DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in reply to papers filed on 2025-01-06. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12 and 18-27 are pending. Claims 1, 18 is/are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 2025-01-06 and 2023-07-26 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the rejection(s) for Improper Markush format set forth in this Office action.
Drawings
Figure 1 is objected to because it fails to include the following reference character(s) mentioned in the description: "system 10". See Specification ¶ 0040.
Figure 1 is objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in Figure(s) 1 should be provided with sufficient descriptive text labels to orient the viewer as to what is being depicted.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6, 21 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggests the following corrections:
Claim(s) 6, 21:
Amend the claim to read, in part, as follows "a completion of an experience by said consumer user; and an indication of an interest by said consumer user."
Claim Rejections – Improper Markush
A claim may be rejected when it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of "at least one of: [i] a design interface in communication with said server for enabling said organization user to create said credential schema data and said result data and for enabling said organization user to upload said credential schema data and said result data to said server; [ii] a second interface for use on said computing device, wherein said second interface enables said consumer user to review and modify credential objects on said computing device; and [iii] said credential verification device" is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: each alternative performs a different task with a different result—none is interchangeable for another.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of "one of the following characteristics: [i] said credential delivery device prompts said consumer user to accept said credential object on said computing device; [ii] multiple organization direct credential delivery devices to deliver credential objects based on a singe credential schema; [iii] said organization user shares said credential schema data with at least one other user; and [iv] said system accesses multiple distributed ledgers" is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: each alternative performs a different task with a different result—none is interchangeable for another. For example, a delivery device prompting a user [i] and multiple distributed ledgers" [iv] do not have a similar structure or common use.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of "said credential delivery device and said credential verification device are at least one of: [i] a single physical unit; and [ii] located in a retail store" is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the type of establishment where devices are located lacks a common use and structural similarity with being installed in the same chassis of computing equipment.
Dependent claims 4, 9 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to objected claims 3, 7 and in view of their dependence thereon.
By contrast, claim(s) 6 and 21 are not found improper because the group of attributes in these claims are all types of consumer data that indicate a person's interest in a product or service, and thus serve a common use to a potential seller. To overcome these rejections, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. Examiner suggests separating each alternative in claims 3, 7, and 12 into separate claims.
Summary of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following table summarizes the rejections set forth in detail below of the claims over the prior art.
Claim No.
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 in view of Naqvi '647
1
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
2
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
3
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
5
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
6
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
7
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
9
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
10
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
12
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
18
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
19
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
20
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
21
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
22
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
23
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
24
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
25
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
26
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
27
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 that 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12 and 18-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 20200014691 to Ortiz et al. (hereinafter "Ortiz '691") in view of U.S. Publication 20200220726 to Lougheed et al. (hereinafter "Lougheed '726"). Ortiz '691 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Lougheed '726 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Ortiz '691 discloses a system for distributed management of consumer data (manages and protects consumer data [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract]; processor(s), memory, computer readable media, storage, executable instructions [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0019, 0061-0062, 0115-0118, 0371])
Ortiz '691 discloses a server for receiving credential schema data from an organization user, said organization user being affiliated with an organization (a plurality of issuers/organizations use issuer parameters to sign characteristics of prover/consumer [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0207, 0210]; tokens are signed by issuer keys and wrap artifacts/characteristics that are hidden from issuer but known to prover/consumer [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0207, 0210])
Ortiz '691 discloses said credential schema data comprising desired attributes of a specific credential, wherein said specific credential relates to said consumer data (issuer determines which characteristics of prover/customer will be signed into a token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0191-0192, 0207, 0210]; consumer data [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0065, 0070, 0079, 0216-0218])
Ortiz '691 does not explicitly disclose writing said credential schema data to a distributed ledger
However, Ortiz '691 discloses writing said credential schema data for later verification (issuer writes credential types to blockchain [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0189-0192])
Ortiz '691 discloses a credential delivery device (consumer device holds a token received from issuer [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186, Fig. 28; 0210, 0234])
Ortiz '691 discloses delivering a credential object to a computing device used by a consumer user in response to a first request from said computing device, said credential object being associated with said specific credential (consumer device holds a token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186, 0070-0072, 0209-0213; Fig. 28]; specific attributes of prover/consumer [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0218, 0216])
Ortiz '691 said credential object is verified by a credential verification device (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186; Fig. 28, 0207] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187])
Ortiz '691 does not explicitly disclose said distributed ledger is accessed by said credential verification device such that said credential schema data is accessed by said credential verification device, wherein said credential verification device accesses said distributed ledger in response to a subsequent verification request from said computing device used by said consumer user
However, Ortiz '691 discloses said credential schema is accessed by said credential verification device such that said credential schema data is accessed by said credential verification device, wherein said credential verification device accesses said credential schema in response to a subsequent verification request from said computing device used by said consumer user (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187]; proposition P is, e.g., age > threshold [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0194, 0279]; proposition P is, e.g., true or false that particular characteristic exists in token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0279])
Ortiz '691 discloses said computing device used by said consumer user generates a response value based on an assessment of said consumer data and said credential schema data, said response value being devoid of any data from said consumer data and credential schema data (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187]; proposition P is, e.g., age > threshold [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0194, 0279]; proposition P is, e.g., true or false that particular characteristic exists in token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0279])
Ortiz '691 discloses said response value is passed to said credential verification device (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187]; proposition P is, e.g., age > threshold [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0194, 0279]; proposition P is, e.g., true or false that particular characteristic exists in token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0279])
Ortiz '691 discloses said response value is analyzed by said credential verification device to determine whether said response value conforms to at least part of said credential schema data (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187]; proposition P is, e.g., age > threshold [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0194, 0279]; proposition P is, e.g., true or false that particular characteristic exists in token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0279])
Ortiz '691 discloses when said response value conforms to said at least part of said credential schema data, a first result is prompted by said credential verification device, and wherein, when said response value is non-conformant to said at least part of said credential schema data, a second result is prompted by said credential verification device (various possible results, depending on whether proposition P is satisfied [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0244, 0194, 0284, 0304-0305])
Further:
Lougheed '726 discloses writing said credential schema data to a distributed ledger (issuer stores credential schema in blockchain [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0076, 0080])
Lougheed '726 discloses said distributed ledger is accessed by said credential verification device such that said credential schema data is accessed by said credential verification device, wherein said credential verification device accesses said distributed ledger in response to a subsequent verification request from said computing device used by said consumer user (verifies credential using credential schema from blockchain [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0076, 0080])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Ortiz '691 with the blockchain storing credential schemata of Lougheed '726 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
writing said credential schema data to a distributed ledger
said distributed ledger is accessed by said credential verification device such that said credential schema data is accessed by said credential verification device, wherein said credential verification device accesses said distributed ledger in response to a subsequent verification request from said computing device used by said consumer user
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because storing the credential schemata in a blockchain would guarantee to both verifiers and issuers that the schemata would be accessible and verifiable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Lougheed '726 teaches [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0076, 0080] modifying a consumer data anonymization and management system [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract] such as that of Ortiz '691 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Ortiz '691 and Lougheed '726 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (blockchain storing credential schemata [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0076, 0080]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (consumer data anonymization and management system [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (blockchain storing credential schemata [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0076, 0080]) to known devices and/or methods (consumer data anonymization and management system [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (consumer data management system [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract] keeps consumers anonymous using blockchain to store credential schemata [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0076, 0080]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses said response value is at least one of: encrypted, and based on biometric data of said consumer user (encrypted proofs [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0190, 0194-0197, 0199, 0230-0232, 0344-0348])
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 1):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: a second interface for use on said computing device, wherein said second interface enables said consumer user to review aid modify credential objects on said computing device (user interface [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0016, 0082]; prover/consumer hides attributes [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0218, 0216])
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: said credential verification device (verifier device is e.g., point of sale device, restricted door [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186, 0244])
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 1):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses said server receives result data from said organization user, wherein said result data relate to at least said first result and said second result, and wherein said server is further for writing said result data to a database (various possible results [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0244]; merchants offer results based on verifying token attributes [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0066, 0096, 0099])
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 1):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: a completion of a purchase by said consumer user (past shopping history [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0065-0066])
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: an indication of a preference by said consumer user (past shopping history [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0065-0066])
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: a completion of an experience by said consumer user (experience, e.g. exercise routine [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0070])
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: an indication of an interest by said consumer user (past shopping history [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0065-0066])
Per claim 7 (dependent on claim 1):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 does not disclose at least one of: said credential delivery device prompts said consumer user to accept said credential object on said computing device
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: said organization user shares said credential schema data with at least one other user (multiple third party verifiers can verify attributes in tokens from various issuers [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0196-0197]; multiple issuers can access attributes [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0191-0192, 0234])
Further:
Lougheed '726 discloses at least one of: said credential delivery device prompts said consumer user to accept said credential object on said computing device (acquires user consent to credential [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0099-0106])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Ortiz '691 with the blockchain storing credential schemata of Lougheed '726 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
at least one of: said credential delivery device prompts said consumer user to accept said credential object on said computing device
Per claim 9 (dependent on claim 7):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses a modification of a credential object comprises at least one of: a deletion of said credential object from said computing device and a temporary disabling of said credential object (prover/consumer hides attributes [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0218, 0216])
Per claim 10 (dependent on claim 1):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses said first request, said delivery of said credential object, said subsequent verification request, and delivery of said first result and said second result are conducted using Near Field Communication (NFC) (NFC, Bluetooth, etc. [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0201, 0074])
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 1):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses said credential delivery device and said credential verification device are at least one of: a single physical unit ; located in a retail store (verifier device is, e.g., point of sale device, restricted door [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186, 0244])
Per claim 18 (independent):
Ortiz '691 discloses a method for distributed management of consumer data, said method comprising steps (manages and protects consumer data [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract]; processor(s), memory, computer readable media, storage, executable instructions [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0019, 0061-0062, 0115-0118, 0371])
Ortiz '691 discloses receiving credential schema data from an organization user, said organization user being affiliated with an organization (a plurality of issuers/organizations use issuer parameters to sign characteristics of prover/consumer [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0207, 0210]; tokens are signed by issuer keys and wrap artifacts/characteristics that are hidden from issuer but known to prover/consumer [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0207, 0210])
Ortiz '691 discloses said credential schema data desired attributes of a specific credential (issuer determines which characteristics of prover/customer will be signed into a token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0191-0192, 0207, 0210]; consumer data [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0065, 0070, 0079, 0216-0218])
Ortiz '691 does not explicitly disclose writing said credential schema data to a distributed ledger
However, Ortiz '691 discloses writing said credential schema data for later verification (issuer writes credential types to blockchain [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0189-0192])
Ortiz '691 discloses receiving, from a computing device used by a consumer user, a first request (consumer device holds a token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186, 0070-0072, 0209-0213; Fig. 28]; specific attributes of prover/consumer [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0218, 0216])
Ortiz '691 discloses delivering a credential object to said computing device in response to said first request (consumer device holds a token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186, 0070-0072, 0209-0213; Fig. 28]; specific attributes of prover/consumer [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0218, 0216])
Further:
Lougheed '726 discloses writing said credential schema data to a distributed ledger (issuer stores credential schema in blockchain [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0076, 0080])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Ortiz '691 with the blockchain storing credential schemata of Lougheed '726 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
writing said credential schema data to a distributed ledger
Per claim 19 (dependent on claim 18):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 18 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses receiving a subsequent verification request from said computing device (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186; Fig. 28, 0207] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187])
Ortiz '691 does not explicitly disclose accessing said distributed ledger in response to said subsequent verification request to thereby access said credential schema data
However, Ortiz '691 discloses accessing said credential schema in response to said subsequent verification request to thereby access said credential schema data (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187]; proposition P is, e.g., age > threshold [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0194, 0279]; proposition P is, e.g., true or false that particular characteristic exists in token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0279])
Ortiz '691 discloses prompting said computing device used by said consumer user to generate a response value based on said consumer data and said credential schema data (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187]; proposition P is, e.g., age > threshold [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0194, 0279]; proposition P is, e.g., true or false that particular characteristic exists in token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0279])
Ortiz '691 discloses receiving said response value from said computing device used by said consumer user (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187]; proposition P is, e.g., age > threshold [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0194, 0279]; proposition P is, e.g., true or false that particular characteristic exists in token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0279])
Ortiz '691 discloses analyzing said response value to determine whether said desired attributes are satisfied by said consumer data, when said response value indicates that said desired attributes are satisfied by said consumer data, passing a first result to said computing device (verifier determines whether prover/consumer device holds [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186] a token comprising an attribute that will satisfy a proposition P [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0293-0305, 0186-0187]; proposition P is, e.g., age > threshold [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0194, 0279]; proposition P is, e.g., true or false that particular characteristic exists in token [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0186-0187, 0279])
Ortiz '691 discloses when said response value indicates that said desired attributes are unsatisfied by said consumer data, passing a second result to said computing device (various possible results, depending on whether proposition P is satisfied [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0244, 0194, 0284, 0304-0305])
Further:
Lougheed '726 discloses accessing said distributed ledger in response to said subsequent verification request to thereby access said credential schema data (verifies credential using credential schema from blockchain [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0076, 0080])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Ortiz '691 with the blockchain storing credential schemata of Lougheed '726 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
accessing said distributed ledger in response to said subsequent verification request to thereby access said credential schema data
Per claim 20 (dependent on claim 18):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 18 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses receiving result data from said organization user, said result data relating to at least a first result and a second result, said first result and said second result being associated with said specific credential; and writing said result data to a database (various possible results [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0244]; merchants offer results based on verifying token attributes [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0066, 0096, 0099])
Per claim 21 (dependent on claim 18):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 18 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: a completion of a purchase by said consumer user (past shopping history [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0065-0066])
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: an indication of a preference by said consumer user (past shopping history [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0065-0066])
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: a completion of an experience by said consumer user (experience, e.g. exercise routine [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0070])
Ortiz '691 discloses at least one of: an indication of an interest by said consumer user (membership in social groups [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0065])
Per claim 22 (dependent on claim 18):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 18 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 does not disclose the step of prompting said consumer user to accept said credential object on said computing device
Further:
Lougheed '726 discloses the step of prompting said consumer user to accept said credential object on said computing device (acquires user consent to credential [Lougheed '726 ¶ 0099-0106])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Ortiz '691 with the blockchain storing credential schemata of Lougheed '726 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the step of prompting said consumer user to accept said credential object on said computing device
Per claim 23 (dependent on claim 18):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 18 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses said credential object on said computing device is reviewable and modifiable by said consumer user (prover/consumer hides attributes [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0218, 0216])
Per claim 24 (dependent on claim 23):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 23 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses a modification of said credential object includes at least one of: a deletion of said credential object from said computing device and a temporary disabling of said credential object (prover/consumer hides attributes [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0218, 0216])
Per claim 25 (dependent on claim 18):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 18 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses said response value is encrypted (encrypted proofs [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0190, 0194-0197, 0199, 0230-0232, 0344-0348])
Per claim 26 (dependent on claim 18):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 18 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 discloses said delivering is performed after a user is successfully, authenticated (authenticates user / device [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0212])
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 in view of U.S. Publication 20180150647 to Navqi et al. (hereinafter "Naqvi '647"). Naqvi '647 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 27 (dependent on claim 26):
Ortiz '691 in view of Lougheed '726 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 26 above, incorporated herein by reference
Ortiz '691 does not disclose said user is authenticated using a biometric authentication process
Further:
Naqvi '647 discloses said user is authenticated using a biometric authentication process (authenticates credential comprising consumer preference attributes using biometrics [Naqvi '647 ¶ 0334-0337, 0397-0402, 0553, 0577, 0609-0610])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Ortiz '691 with the biometric authentication of Naqvi '647 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
said user is authenticated using a biometric authentication process
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because biometric authentication would ensure that only authenticated users can perform actions that must be limited to users. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Naqvi '647 teaches [Naqvi '647 ¶ 0334-0337, 0397-0402, 0553, 0577, 0609-0610] modifying a consumer data anonymization and management system [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract] such as that of Ortiz '691 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Ortiz '691 and Naqvi '647 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (biometric authentication [Naqvi '647 ¶ 0334-0337, 0397-0402, 0553, 0577, 0609-0610]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (consumer data anonymization and management system [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (biometric authentication [Naqvi '647 ¶ 0334-0337, 0397-0402, 0553, 0577, 0609-0610]) to known devices and/or methods (consumer data anonymization and management system [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (consumer data management system [Ortiz '691 ¶ 0013, 0016, 0065-0066, Abstract] keeps consumers anonymous while ensuring that only authenticated users can act using biometric authentication [Naqvi '647 ¶ 0334-0337, 0397-0402, 0553, 0577, 0609-0610]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C PARSONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1475. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWRF 7:30-4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/THEODORE C PARSONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494