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 .
Acknowledgements
This Office Action addresses the response filed on 01/30/2026.
Claim 1 was amended.
Claim 13 was canceled.
Claims 1-12, 14 and 15 are pending.
Claims 1-12, 14 and 15 were examined.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The claims recited and were amended to recite multiple instances of the term “DIAL”. The specification also recites “DIAL” in multiple instances. For instance, the specification as filed refers to the term as1:
The “Level” of a credential (i.e. a numeric value) in paragraphs [0005] and [0046]. See, for instance, “a DIAL is a numeric value…”;
A system (i.e. a DIAL / DIAL system), as recited in paragraphs [0048]-[0050]. See, for instance, “DIAL verifies and categorizes…”
These language inconsistencies raise antecedent basis in the specification for the claimed term “DIAL” in the claims. For instance, independent claim 1 was amended to recite:
“…an associated Digital Identity Attribute Level (DIAL)… in the holder wallet… the DIAL verifies and categorizes attributes of a digital identity, from weakness to strength, based on completion of verifications in a closed loop process of collecting verified evidence from the identification verifier machines and then updating a DIAL.”
The claimed language, therefore, appears to use both terms “DIAL” described in the specification interchangeably (i.e. DIAL is described in the claims as referring to both a “value” and a “system”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-12, 14 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.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “the DIAL verifies and categorizes attributes of a digital identity, from weakness to strength, based on completion of verifications in a closed loop process of collecting verified evidence from the identification verifier machines and then updating a DIAL”. The specification as filed recites, inter alia:
“[0045] Figure 5 illustrates the identity coordinator module 122 performing a closed loop process with an operation to collect verified evidence 500 and then to update a Digital Identity Attribute Level (DIAL) score 502.”
Therefore, the specification as filed does not recite the manner in which the "DIAL" is updated, as claimed. The only instance of "update" found in the specification as filed is directed to updating a score 502 (see paragraph [0045]). Specifically, it appears the claims require either a DIAL to updating another DIAL or another function of "updating a DIAL" performed by the system. None of these embodiments is sufficiently described by the specification as filed. Therefore, the specification as filed does not provide sufficient written description for the amended claimed language (see MPEP 2161.01). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Dependent claims 2-12, 14 and 15 are also rejected since they depend on claims 1, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 was amended to recite: “and then updating a DIAL”. It is unclear by the claim language whether the language “updating” refers to a function performed by the claimed apparatus (i.e. “in addition to receive/assign/ register/receive/issue”), or whether it refers to “closed-looped process” (i.e. “a closed loop process of A. collecting verified evidence from the identification verifier machines and B. then updating a DIAL”). For purposes of Examination, Examiner considers the latter. This duality renders the scope of the claims unclear. Dependent claims 2-15 are also rejected since they depend on claim 1.
Claim 3-12 recite “the DIAL” in multiple lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claims. The introduction of a second "a DIAL" in the independent claim renders the term "the DIAL" in the dependent claims unclear, as it is now unclear whether the claims refer to an associated Digital Identity Attribute Level (DIAL) in line 15 of the independent claim or the (updated) DIAL in line 21. This duality renders the scope of dependent claims 3-12 unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 14 and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 2025/0045374 A1), hereinafter Lei, in view of Duffy et al. (US 2023/0177495 A1) , hereinafter Duffy and, in further view of Wong et al. (US 2011/0055913 A1), hereinafter Wong.
With respect to claim 1, Lei teaches an apparatus (Relationship and attribute management using decentralized identifiers) comprising:
a network interface circuit to provide connectivity to a network including an identification issuer machine, an identification holder machine, an identification validation machine, identification verifier machines and an identification registry machine (see Fig. 1, paragraphs [0017]-[0020], network interface);
a processor connected to the network interface circuit (see Fig. 1, paragraphs [0017]-[0020], processor); and
a memory connected to the processor, the memory storing instructions executed by the processor to: receive a registration request from the identification issuer machine (see Fig. 1, paragraphs [0017]-[0020], memory; paragraph [0045], registration request),
assign a distributed identification (DID) to the identification issuer machine (see paragraph [0047], DID generation),
register the DID at the identification registry machine (see paragraph [0047}, generate a relationship DID that provides a decentralized globally unique identifier as verifiable proof of the relationship),
receive an identification request from the identification holder machine (see paragraph [0050], the 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 machines (see paragraph [0050]: "The 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 that is tracked by an attribute 125 that is verifiable using the informational DIDs 123 and DID documents 129 stored in the distributed ledger 109").
Lei does not explicitly disclose an apparatus comprising: issue a verified identification credential with an associated Digital Identity Attribute Level (DIAL) to a holder wallet associated with a user of the identification holder machine, where the verified identification credential and DIAL in the holder wallet is accessible only with permission from the user of the identification holder machine, which is selectively granted to different machines over time to establish a reusable digital identity; the DIAL verifies and categorizes attributes of a digital identity from weakness to strength, based on completion of verifications in a closed loop process of collecting verified evidence from the identification verifier machines, and then updating a DIAL
While this language represents non-functional descriptive material and is therefore not given patentable weight, this difference is insufficient to distinguish the claims over Lei. However, in the interest of compact prosecution and assuming weight was to be given to the non-functional descriptive material recitations above, Duffy discloses an apparatus (Systems and methods for digital identity score) comprising:
issue a verified identification credential with an associated Digital Identity Attribute Level (DIAL) to a holder wallet associated with a user of the identification holder machine (see paragraph [0045]: “Referring to FIG. 5, an illustrative system 500 for implementing methods for calculating a digital identity score according to the present disclosure is shown. A digital identity score may be similar to a credit score in the sense that a digital identity score system 500 may use various data points to determine the digital identity score, e.g., based upon verifiable credentials (also known as VCs) and other information. The digital identity score may then be issued as a verifiable credential so that when the digital identity score is presented to a third party, the digital identity score can be verified. The identity score VC could be issued by the digital identity score system 500 or enterprise with the digital identity score system 500, based upon information that the consumer provides to use in the assessment and calculation. Once the digital identity score is calculated, the digital identity score system 500 can issue the verifiable credential and/or retain the score to support later requests by a third party (similar to how a credit score works today). The key difference between the credit score and the digital identity score using verifiable credentials is that the digital identity score is an indicator of confidence that the person is who they claim to be, whereas the credit score is an indicator of the consumer's likelihood to make all payments on a loan/credit.”; paragraph [0065]: “The consumer can present this identity score verifiable credential to any third parties as proof of who the consumer is. The identity score verifiable credential provides the third party proof of identity—trust it is you. The identity score verifiable credential may be held in the digital wallet of the consumer with all of the consumer's other verifiable credentials. The identity score verifiable credential may include a time stamp of when it was issued..."; paragraph [0068]: “In some embodiments, the consumer selects what verifiable credentials will be used for the digital identity score. The consumer may provide guidelines, rules, or exclusions for the digital identity score calculation. For example, the consumer may provide a rule stating: do not use any bank verifiable credentials for the calculation of the digital identity score, or do not use a certain merchant's verifiable credentials for the calculation of the digital identity score”),
where the verified identification credential and DIAL in the holder wallet is accessible only with permission from the user of the identification holder machine, which is selectively granted to different machines over time to establish a reusable digital identity (see paragraph [0048]: “Consumers could provide the digital identity score system 500 different credentials they have in their digital wallet and the digital identity score system 500 could determine a digital identity score for the consumer based on their obtained verified credentials. Consumers may choose to only show some verified credential to determine their score as some verified credentials may not affect the digital identity score...");
the DIAL verifies and categorizes attributes of a digital identity…, and then updating a DIAL (see dynamic identity score, paragraph [0052] VC weighting, paragraphs [0056]-[0062]; [paragraph [0070]: “In step 630, the computing device 501 and/or the digital identity score system 500 calculates or generates a digital identity score for the consumer, as discussed in detail above. The digital identity score may be based at least in part on the real-time identity score inputs and the data/information in the verifiable credentials presented from the consumer. In step 640, the calculated digital identity score may be validated. The digital identity score may be validated by a validating entity or by the entity that oversees the calculation/generation of the digital identity score. The digital identity score may be validated by verifying the verifiable credentials in the digital wallet. The digital identity score may be any numerical, alphabetical, or graphical value.”; paragraph [0078]: “In some embodiments, the consumers could request the digital identity score to be updated. In another embodiment, a mobile phone application may detect that a new verifiable credential has been issued and ask the consumer if they would like to request an updated digital identity score based on the new credential and/or the new credential being issued. The digital identity score system 500 may ask the consumer permission to update the digital identity score on some frequency. Additionally, the digital identity score may be time limited, so the consumer may need to update the digital identity score on some frequency.”; Fig. 7B, weakness/strength (trust rating 766), paragraph [0074]: “...Additionally, the user interface 705 may include a credential table or a listing 760 of the credentials that were presented to the computing device 501 and/or digital identity score system 500 by the consumer. The credential table 760 may include a listing of the issuer 762, the type of credential provided 764, and the trust rating 766 of that specific issuer/type of credential. The user interface 705 may also include a “TOOL TIP” 770 that provides the consumer recommendations or tips on how to improve the digital identity score.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the identity score verifiable credential as disclosed by Duffy in the apparatus of Lei, the motivation being to allow a customer to present this identity score verifiable credential to any third parties as proof of who the consumer is (see Duffy, paragraph [0065]).
The combination of Lei and Duffy does not explicitly disclose an apparatus comprising: [the DIAL verifies and categorizes attributes of a digital identity] from weakness to strength, based on completion of verifications in a closed loop process of collecting verified evidence from the identification verifier machines.
While this language represents non-functional descriptive material and is therefore not given patentable weight, this difference is insufficient to distinguish the claims over the combination of Lei and Wong, for compact prosecution purposes, Wong discloses an apparatus (Multi-level authentication) comprising:
[the DIAL verifies and categorizes attributes of a digital identity] from weakness to strength, based on completion of verifications in a closed loop process of collecting verified evidence from the identification verifier machines (see paragraph [0061]: “Embodiments of the invention may notify other entities or otherwise make available information describing how many levels of authentication and/or what types of authentication that a particular requesting party successfully and/or unsuccessfully underwent... Embodiments may expose an attribute that describes or characterizes this information, and other entities may query or retrieve the attribute...”; paragraph [0062]: “For example, a security system may use such information (i.e., how many levels and types of authentication the requesting party successfully underwent) in determining what type of access privileges to grant to the requesting party. In this way, if a requesting party undergoes a relatively rigorous type of authentication (for example, a large number of authentication levels or a strenuous type of authentication), then the requesting party may be granted a relatively larger amount of access privileges in recognition of the fact that the user has established their identity to a high degree of certainty. On the other hand, if a requesting party undergoes a relatively weak type of authentication, and the requesting party submits an incorrect password multiple times or otherwise has one or more failed authentication attempts, then the requesting party may be granted a relatively weaker amount of access privileges in recognition of the fact that the user has not established their identity to a high degree of certainty”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the information describing how many levels of authentication and/or what types of authentication that a particular requesting party successfully and/or unsuccessfully underwent as disclosed by Wong in the apparatus of Lei and Duffy, the motivation being to use such information (i.e., how many levels and types of authentication the requesting party successfully underwent) in determining what type of access privileges to grant to the requesting party (see Wong, paragraph [0062]).
With respect to the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “where the verified identification credential and DIAL in the holder wallet is accessible only with permission from the user of the identification holder machine, which is selectively granted to different machines over time to establish a reusable digital identity”; “the DIAL verifies and categorizes attributes of a digital identity, from weakness to strength, based on completion of verifications in a closed loop process of collecting verified evidence from the identification verifier machines and then updating a DIAL”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05. In addition, claim 1 recites “a network interface circuit to provide connectivity to a network including… machine(s)…”, a statement of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Lei discloses an apparatus further comprising instructions executed by the processor to: receive an identification verification request, retrieve the verified identification credential and DIAL from the holder wallet, supply the verified identification credential to the identification verifier machine, resolve the DID at the identification registry machine to establish a decentralized verification process, and verify the verified identification credential and DIAL (see paragraph [0052], e.g., the verifier service can transmit an attribute request that specifies an attribute; paragraph [0087], e.g., the client device can broadcast or transmit a peer did that includes the VCs; paragraph [0067], e.g., The DID management service can generate a relationship DID that provides a decentralized globally unique identifier as verifiable proof of the relationship; paragraph [0088], e.g., the verifier service can verify the VCs). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 2 recites “resolve the DID at the identification registry machine to establish a decentralized verification process” , a statement of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Duffy discloses an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon self-attested data (see paragraph [0062]: “In some embodiments, the computing device 501 and/or the digital identity score system 500 may utilize categories to calculate and determine the digital identity score. For example, the computing device 501 and/or the digital identity score system 500 may use a set number of verifiable credentials from different categories to determine digital identity score. The categories may be retail, government, banking, utility, etc. By utilizing different categories, the total digital identity score may be based on different verifiable credentials from different category sources. A “pedigree” or standing of the company/organization in the industry may also be used in the weighting for the information/data in the verifiable credential.”; paragraph [0068]: “In some embodiments, the consumer selects what verifiable credentials will be used for the digital identity score. The consumer may provide guidelines, rules, or exclusions for the digital identity score calculation. For example, the consumer may provide a rule stating: do not use any bank verifiable credentials for the calculation of the digital identity score, or do not use a certain merchant's verifiable credentials for the calculation of the digital identity score.”;). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 3 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon self-attested data”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Duffy discloses an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon third-party data (see paragraphs [0055], [0062] and [0068]); Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 4 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon third-party data.”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Duffy discloses an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon physical ID documents (see Fig. 2, paragraph [0039]: " The digital identity system 200 may provide a standard way to express the physical/paper credentials, such as driving licenses and passports, into cryptographically-secure and machine-verifiable digital credentials."; paragraphs [0055], [0062] and [0068]). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 5 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon physical ID documents”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Duffy discloses an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon biometric data (see paragraphs [0039]; [0055], [0062] and [0068]. Examiner notes driving licenses and passports are based on biometric data, and since the DIAL is based upon those, it is also based on biometric data). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 6 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon biometric data”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Duffy discloses an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon device data (see paragraphs [0055], [0062] and [0068]; paragraph [0076]: “As illustrated in step 670, the digital identity score may be stored. The digital identity score may be stored on any type of device including memory. For example, the computing device 501 and/or digital identity device 100 may store in the digital identity score.”;). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 8 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon device data”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Duffy discloses an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon network data (see paragraph [0052], score is base in a machine learning algorithm utilizing multiple architectures including data of a plurality of networks). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 9 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon network data”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Duffy discloses an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon authoritative source data (see approved issuers, paragraph [0017]). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 10 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon authoritative source data”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Duffy discloses an apparatus wherein the DID is governed in a decentralized network (see Fig. 4, paragraph [0044]: “... The digital identity system 200 may also include a digital wallet 402 associated with the holders 220, decentralized identifiers (DIDs) 404, and a ledger 406. The ledger 406 may be a private or public permissioned blockchain or other decentralized network..."). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 14 recites “wherein the DID is governed in a decentralized network”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Duffy discloses an apparatus wherein the holder wallet is interoperable with proprietary digital wallets (see paragraph [0028]: “Decentralized Identifier (DID): A globally unique identifier developed specifically for decentralized systems as defined by the W3C DID specification. DIDs enable interoperable decentralized Digital Identity management. A DID is associated with exactly one DID Document.”;).
Claims 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US 2025/0045374 A1), in view of Duffy (US 2023/0177495 A1), in view of Wong (US 2011/0055913 A1), in view of Rolfe et al. (US 2021/0266318 A1), hereinafter Rolfe.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. The combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong does not explicitly teach an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon proof of liveness data.
However, Rolfe discloses an apparatus (Authenticator centralization and protection based on authenticator type and authentication policy) wherein the DIAL is based upon proof of liveness data (see Fig. 6, matrix of authenticators/credentials enrolled by a user using the authentication system, liveliness detection, paragraph [0112]: “FIG. 6 shows a table representing a hierarchical list of available credentials including categories, types and attributes stored in the database 121 of the authentication service 190 to be associated with a particular account ID for an enrolled user. As shown in the table, the categories include biometric, knowledge and possession...").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the credential issuance only after verifying biometrics, knowledge and possession as disclosed by Rolfe in the apparatus of Lei, Duffy and Wong, the motivation being to bind the user, the credential and the device to ensure the credential is actually being presented by the owner and allowing for the selection of biometric considered most appropriate under the transaction circumstances (see Rolfe, paragraphs [0091], [0108] and [0112]).Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 7 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon proof of liveness data”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining Lei and Duffy remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. The combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong does not explicitly teach an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon knowledge-based authentication.
However, Rolfe discloses an apparatus (Authenticator centralization and protection based on authenticator type and authentication policy) wherein the DIAL is based upon knowledge-based authentication (see Fig. 6, matrix of authenticators/credentials enrolled by a user using the authentication system, knowledge, paragraph [0112]: “FIG. 6 shows a table representing a hierarchical list of available credentials including categories, types and attributes stored in the database 121 of the authentication service 190 to be associated with a particular account ID for an enrolled user. As shown in the table, the categories include biometric, knowledge and possession..."). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 11 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon knowledge-based authentication”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the credential issuance only after verifying biometrics, knowledge and possession as disclosed by Rolfe in the apparatus of Lei, Duffy and Wong, the motivation being to bind the user, the credential and the device to ensure the credential is actually being presented by the owner and allowing for the selection of biometric considered most appropriate under the transaction circumstances (see Rolfe, paragraphs [0091], [0108] and [0112]).Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 7 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon proof of liveness data”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining Lei and Duffy remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong teaches all the subject matter of the apparatus as described above with respect to claim 1. The combination of Lei, Duffy and Wong does not explicitly teach an apparatus wherein the DIAL is based upon two-factor authentication.
However, Rolfe discloses an apparatus (Authenticator centralization and protection based on authenticator type and authentication policy) wherein the DIAL is based upon two-factor authentication (see paragraph [0030]: “According to another aspect of the invention, the stored authenticators include a plurality of authenticators including at least two different authenticators in different categories of authenticators, the different categories including a knowledge category including information known to the user, a possession category including something physically possessed by the user; and a biometric category identifying physical attributes of the user. More preferably, the authenticators will include one or more of: (i) at least two different authenticators in different categories of authenticators, the different categories including at least two of a knowledge category including information known to the user, a possession category including something physically possessed by the user; and a biometric category identifying physical attributes of the user; (ii) at least two different types of authenticators in a same category of authenticators or (iii) at least two different species of authenticators of the same type of authenticator.”;).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the credential issuance only after verifying biometrics, knowledge and possession as disclosed by Rolfe in the apparatus of Lei, Duffy and Wong, the motivation being to bind the user, the credential and the device to ensure the credential is actually being presented by the owner and allowing for the selection of biometric considered most appropriate under the transaction circumstances (see Rolfe, paragraphs [0091], [0108] and [0112]).Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 12 recites “wherein the DIAL is based upon two-factor authentication”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining Lei and Duffy remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, page 5, filed on 01/30/2026), with respect to the objection of claim 1 have been fully considered. In view of the submitted amendments removing the word "socre" in claim 1, Examiner finds Applicant's arguments persuasive, therefore the objection was withdrawn.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, page 5, filed on 01/30/2026), with respect to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejection was withdrawn since the claim was cancelled.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, page 5, filed on 01/30/2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12, 14 and 15 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive. As an initial matter, there appears to be a severe disagreement regarding the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of certain claim terms. For instance, it appears Applicant places undue weight to certain claim language. Applicant recites “the claimed categorization of attributes of a digital identity from weakness to strength based on completion of verifications in a closed loop process”. The claims, however, merely describe a data element (i.e. a “DIAL”), as follows: “the DIAL verifies and categorizes attributes of a digital identity, from weakness to strength, based on completion of verifications in a closed loop process of collecting verified evidence from the identification verifier machines and then updating a DIAL” This was thoroughly detailed in the previous office Action, and Examiner disagrees patentable weight should be given to language describing non-functional descriptive material. Examiner notes the apparatus claims do not require the performance of the function of “categorization” or performing a “closed loop process”. The claims merely describe certain aspects of the data (i.e. the DIAL), which does not alter the subject matter of the BRI of the claims. Examiner notes that while the rejection addresses these elements for compact prosecution purposes, patentable weight shouldn’t be given to language which should be granted none. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained and updated for compact prosecution purposes in view of the amended language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patent Literature
Bondesen et al. (US 2015/0254645 A1) disclose providing supplemental account information in digital wallets, including determining a level of access for receiving supplemental information related to a payment credential.
Bidkar et al. (US 2023/0107541 A1) disclose system for dynamic authentication and processing of electronic activities based on parallel neural network processing, including multiple, predetermined levels of authentication, based on the functions that are permitted for the given authentication level.
Non-Patent Literature
Alizadeh et al. (NPL 2022, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "U") disclose Comparative Analysis of Decentralized Identity Approaches, including comparing different types of identification in a decentralized environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
1 Examiner notes the specification also recites “DIAL levels”, which translate to “Digital Identity Attribute Level levels” in paragraphs [0060] and [0061].
Prosecution Insights