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 response to the correspondence filed on 07/13/23. Claims 1-20 are still pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the non-transitory, computer-readable medium" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Examiner notes that Claim 14 does not appear to necessarily include the “system” aspects of the parent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gamache et al. (2019/0253430).
Claim 1: Gamache et al. discloses a system, comprising:
at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory [page 10, paragraph 0097]; and
machine-readable instructions stored in the at least one memory that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one computing device to at least:
perform at least a portion of a verification process using a relationship decentralized identifier (DID) presented by a holder, wherein the relationship DID provides proof of a relationship between the holder and a DID management service(user validated/authenticated as permitted user) [page 8, paragraph 0084];
transmit an attribute request to the DID management service, wherein the attribute request specifies an attribute stored in an informational DID logically associated with the relationship DID(request permissions) [page 27, paragraphs 0218-0220]; and
receive the attribute or information generated using the attribute, wherein the attribute or the information is received from the DID management service based at least in part on an authorization response transmitted to the DID management service from a client device of the holder(permission/association tables modified in response to the user of client device granting or denying the requests) [page 27, paragraphs 0221-0224].
Claim 5: Gamache et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the authorization response is transmitted from the client device of the holder to the DID management service based at least in part on a user selection of a user interface element on the client device(prompt user through interface) [page 27, paragraphs 0221-0222].
Claim 6: Gamache et al. discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the user interface element is generated based at least in part on the client device receiving, from the DID management service, an attribute authorization request that specifies the attribute [page 27, paragraphs 0221-0222].
Claim 9: Gamache et al. discloses a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory [page 10, paragraph 0097]; and
machine-readable instructions stored in the at least one memory that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to at least:
transmit, to a decentralized identifier (DID) management service, a relationship request(requesting app token) [page 5, paragraph 0054];
receive, from the DID management service, a verifiable credential request that identifies at least one verifiable credential as criteria to instate the relationship(OAuth 2.0 flow) [page 5, paragraph 0054 | page 7, paragraph 0081];
transmit the at least one verifiable credential to the DID management service to fulfill the criteria [page 5, paragraph 0054 | page 7, paragraph 0081]; and
receive, from the DID management service, a relationship DID that provides proof of the relationship(issues app token) [page 5, paragraph 0064].
Claim 11: Gamache et al. discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor of the computing device, cause the computing device to at least: establish, between the computing device and the DID management service, a secure connection, wherein the relationship request is transmitted using the secure connection(through private channels) [page 1, paragraph 0003].
Claim 13: Gamache et al. discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor of the computing device, cause the computing device to at least: access or retrieve the at least one verifiable credential using a wallet application [page 4, paragraph 0052].
Claim 15: Gamache et al. discloses a method, comprising:
transmitting, by a client device to a decentralized identifier (DID) management service, preauthorization data that preauthorizes an attribute to be provided to enable a customized user experience(grant/deny requested permissions) [page 27, paragraphs 0221-0224];
receiving, by the client device from the DID management service, a verified credential that specifies the attribute(prompting user of client device) [page 27, paragraphs 0221-0224];
detecting, by the client device, a service area associated with a verifier service(group-based communication server) [page 27, paragraphs 0221-0224]; and
transmitting, by the client device, the verified credential to the verifier service, wherein the verifier service provides the customized user experience based at least in part on the attribute specified by the verified credential(receives authorization grant) [page 27, paragraphs 0221-0224].
Claim 16: Gamache et al. discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the verified credential is transmitted using a peer DID [page 27, paragraphs 0218-0220].
Claim 17: Gamache et al. discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving, by the client device from the verifier service, instructions to generate or update a user interface on a display of the client device to customize the user interface based at least in part on the attribute(permission requests) [page 27, paragraphs 0218-0220]; and generating or updating, by the client device, the user interface to customize the user interface based at least in part on the attribute(prompting user with requested permissions) [page 27, paragraphs 0221-0224].
Claim 18: Gamache et al. discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: generating or updating a user interface on a display of a verifier device to include instructions for a user of the verifier device to provide the customized user experience based at least in part on the attribute specified by the verified credential [page 27, paragraphs 0221-0224].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sondhi et al. (2015/0089570).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Hirl can be reached at (571)272-3685. 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.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435