DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2025-10-10 has been entered and fully considered.
In light of applicant’s amendment, filed 2025-10-10, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
In light of applicant’s amendment, filed 2025-10-10, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 2025-10-10, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Before addressing the merits of Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification; See MPEP § 2111. In this regard, the Examiner notes that naming a system (e.g. “an identification issuer machine, an identification holder machine, an identification validation machine, an identification verifier machine and an identification registry machine”) is merely nonfunctional descriptive language that does not imbue any inherent structural or functional limitations to a computing device; See MPEP §§ 2111.05 and 2114. Further, Applicant sometimes relies on features from the specification; however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims; See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, so long as any prior art performs the same function recited by the named computing devices as recited in the claims, such prior art also necessarily anticipates the claimed element of such a named computing device performing the function.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lei fails to disclose an operation to “receive a registration request from the identification issuer machine” as recited in claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant argues that the citation of Lei is of “a DID management service receiving a request from a client machine, not an identification issuer machine”. The Examiner notes, however, that there is no claimed structural or functional limitation of the “identification issuer machine” that precludes it from being anticipated by a client machine.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lei fails to disclose an operation to “assign a distributed identification (DID) to the identification issuer machine” as recited in claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant argues that the citation of Lei is that the “DID management service processes the registration request from the client device” and that it “does not assign a DID to the identification issuer machine”. The Examiner notes, however, that Lei discloses that “relationship DID 121 that provides a decentralized globally unique identifier as verifiable proof of the relationship” ([0047]), wherein the relationship is between a holder entity and a particular issuer entity, i.e., the DID of Lei assigns an identifying relationship to not only the client device but also the identification issuer machine, such as recited in the claim.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lei fails to disclose an operation to “register the DID (for the identification issuer machine) at the identification registry machine” as recited in claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant argues that the citation of Lei “has a distributed ledger to store the DID for the client device, not the identification issuer [sic: the Examiner presumes Applicant means ‘registry’] machine”. The Examiner notes, however, that there is no claimed structural or functional limitation of the “identification registry machine” that precludes it from being anticipated by a client machine.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lei fails to disclose an operation to “receive an identification request from the identification holder machine” as recited in claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant argues that the citation of Lei “is an interaction between a client device and a verifier” and “is not an interaction between the claimed identity coordinator machine 102 and an identification holder machine 140”. The Examiner notes, however, that “identity coordinator machine 102” and “identification holder machine 140” are not recited in the claims. Rather, the claim merely recites the party from which the request is received without limitation of from where the request originated. Thus, the claim only requires one party, not “an interaction” as argued, nor does it require the particular language of the specific parties alleged by Applicant. More so, nothing precludes the claimed “identification holder machine” from being anticipated by a verifier service/ device.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lei fails to disclose an operation to “collect verified identification evidence from the identification validation machine” as recited in claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant argues that the citation of Lei “is an interaction between a client device and a verifier” and “is not the claimed interaction between the identity coordinator machine 102 and a validation machine 150 (which is different than verifier machine 160)”. The Examiner notes, however, that “identity coordinator machine 102” and “validation machine 150” are not recited in the claims, nor do the claims require any such distinction between a validation machine and verifier machine. Rather, the claim merely recites the party from which the verified identification evidence is collected without limitation as to what party performs the collection. Thus, the claim only requires one party, not “an interaction” as argued, nor does it require the particular language of the specific parties alleged by Applicant. More so, nothing precludes the claimed “identification validation machine” from being anticipated by a verifier service/device.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lei fails to disclose an operation to “issue a verified identification credential to a holder wallet associated with a user of the identification holder machine” as recited in claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant argues that the citation of Lei “is not the claimed operation to issue a verified identification credential to a holder wallet associated with a user of the identification holder machine” and that “[b]roadcasting a verified credential is not similar to issuing a verified credential to a holder wallet associated with a user of the identification holder machine”. The Examiner notes, however, that nothing precludes the claimed “holder wallet associated with a user of the identification holder machine” from being anticipated by any of the computing devices receiving the broadcast.
Thus, based on the above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection over Lei is proper.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2025-12-29 and 2026-04-20 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20250045374-A1, hereinafter “Lei”).
With respect to independent claim 1, Lei discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a network interface circuit to provide connectivity to a network including an identification issuer machine, an identification holder machine, an identification validation machine, an identification verifier machine and an identification registry machine {paras. 0017-0019: “a network interface” to connect “computing devices” to “a networked environment”}.
a processor connected to the network interface circuit {para. 0019: “a processor”}.
a memory connected to the processor, the memory storing instructions executed by the processor {para. 0019: “a memory”} to:
receive a registration request from the identification issuer machine {para. 0045: “client device 106 can transmit a registration request to the DID management service 103”}.
assign a distributed identification (DID) to the identification issuer machine {paras. 0026 and 0047: “DID management service 103 can … generate a relationship DID 121 that provides a decentralized globally unique identifier as verifiable proof of the relationship”}.
register the DID at the identification registry machine {para. 0047: “the DID management service 103 can generate a relationship DID 121 and store it in the distributed ledger 109 in association with a DID document 129”}.
receive an identification request from the identification holder machine {para. 0050: “client device 106 can transmit the relationship DID 121 to the verifier service 112 or a verifier device 154”}.
collect verified identification evidence from the identification validation machine {para. 0050: “verifier service 112 can additionally or alternatively require confirmation of an attribute 125, or a claim that is based on the attribute 125. For example, the verifier service 112 may require a threshold or particular credit limit, credit score, bank balance, government license, age, or other attribute value”}.
issue a verified identification credential to a holder wallet associated with a user of the identification holder machine {para. 0049: “DID management service 103 can also provide VCs 151 corresponding to the attributes 125” to “the client device 106”}, where the verified identification credential in the holder wallet is accessible only with permission from the user of the identification holder machine {para. 0087: “client device 106 can provide a set of VCs 151 that is limited to those logically associated with the identified verifier service 112. The attributes 125 and the set of VCs 151 can also be indicated to be preauthorized for the identified verifier service 112”}.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Lei discloses further comprising instructions executed by the processor to:
receive an identification verification request {para. 0052: “verifier service 112 can transmit an attribute request that specifies an attribute 125”}.
retrieve the verified identification credential from the holder wallet {para. 0087: “client device 106 can broadcast or transmit a peer did 161 that includes the VCs 151”}.
supply the verified identification credential to the identification verifier machine {para. 0087: “client device 106 can provide a set of VCs 151 that is limited to those logically associated with the identified verifier service 112”}.
resolve the DID at the identification registry machine to establish a decentralized verification process {para. 0067: “DID management service 103 can generate a relationship DID 121 that provides a decentralized globally unique identifier as verifiable proof of the relationship”}.
verify the verified identification credential {para. 0088: “verifier service 112 can verify the VCs 151”}.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Lei discloses wherein the verified identification credential is issued in accordance with an open standard created by the World Wide Web Consortium {para. 0025: “a DID and its related components such as the DID document 129 can conform to a standard such as a decentralized identifier standard promoted or published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)”}.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Lei discloses wherein the DID is governed in a decentralized network {para. 0099: “a collection of distributed computer-readable media located across a plurality of computing devices (e.g., storage area networks or distributed or clustered filesystems or databases)”}.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Lei discloses wherein the holder wallet is interoperable with proprietary digital wallets {para. 0093: “enables the user to select a wallet”}.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Lei discloses wherein the verified identification credential is a verified profile page {para. 0037: “client application 147 can include a browser, a dedicated application, or other executable, and the user interface 156 can include a network page, an application screen, or other user mechanism for obtaining user input”}.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Lei discloses wherein the verified identification credential is a verify request {para. 0093: “a user can interact with user interface elements of a user interface 156c to provide third-party VCs 151 with attributes 125 that are VC criteria 133 used to instate a relationship”}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The reference Steele et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200403805-A1) discloses a decentralized data authentication platform.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270-5436. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William (“Bill”) Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/Kevin Bechtel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights