DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on November 25, 2025 for application 18528171
Acknowledgements
Claims 9-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-32 have been added.
Claims 1-8 and 21-32 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 21-32 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claimed features address a specific technical problem in data integration that conventional systems cannot solve and provides a concrete technological improvement by enabling real-time cross-modality data correlation. Applicant argues that the recited techniques generate an association between non-blockchain based identifiers and blockchain- based identifiers in real time and further analyze such associations, thereby overcoming the technical challenges that hinder conventional data collection and sharing systems. Lastly, Applicant argues that the recited claimed techniques do not merely use generic computer components to automate a business practice instead the claimed techniques support a specific technological improvement to data integration technology by enabling unified identity management across blockchain and non-blockchain environments, thereby reducing computational overhead and eliminating duplicative data collection efforts, hence, integrating the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo framework.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees as the amended claims are still reciting managing or mapping client data with identifiers. The specific claim limitations “monitoring an interaction between a client/user and service provider; obtaining client data that includes an identifier for the user; detecting that the interaction includes an authentication of a [wallet] identifier associated with the user by the service provider; generating an association between the client data and [wallet] identifier in real-time; and outputting an identity asset that includes the association as integrating the client data with the [wallet] identifier and controlling access to content via digital service based on the identity asset” recite an abstract idea as they are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas classified under “commercial or legal interactions”, specifically including business relations. For example, in this case, the amended claims are reciting a series of steps for data management and sharing between a client and service provider by integrating personal client data and wallet-based user data into a repository. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a processing device, client device, service provider system, blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a block-chain and blockchain-based identifier, merely involve using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a processing device, client device, service provider system, blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a block-chain and blockchain-based identifier to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The amended claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology other than simply using the additional elements to implement the concept of managing or mapping client data with identifiers.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the combination of references, specifically, Padmanabhan, does not disclose “detecting ... that the interaction includes authentication of a blockchain identifier associated with the user with a blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a blockchain by the service provider system”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Padmanabhan discloses the concept of verifying the authenticity of an example set of assets using information collected from an authenticated user in which an entry is created in a blockchain system that is part of the verification system in paragraph 0023. A unique identifier is generated that is encrypted and stored on the blockchain. Paragraph 0024 discloses how the authenticated user of the verification application collects information about the asset which is compared to the information stored in the blockchain and the unique identifier is regenerated for comparison. Padmanabhan discloses that if the asset is verified, then the transaction is added to the blockchain 109 including information collected during the transaction related to the asset. Examiner believes Padmanabhan does in fact disclose the authentication of a blockchain identifier or the generated unique identifier associated with the user with a blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a blockchain by the service provider system in paragraphs 0034 and 0042 where a hosted computing environment 411 is communicably interfaced with a plurality of user client devices including databases. A client-server relationship is disclosed where requests are received at the host organization which may be directed toward a blockchain for which the blockchain services interface 490 of the host organization 410 operates as an intermediary. Paragraph 0042 discloses a query interface that is utilized to receive and execute queries against the databases and returning a result set. The query interface 480 implements an Application Programming Interface (API) through which queries may be executed against the databases and provides interoperability with the blockchain services interface disclosed in paragraph 0042.
Applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method, claims 21-27 are directed to a system and claims 28-32 are directed to a computer-readable storage media. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite managing or mapping client data with identifiers which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “monitoring an interaction between a client/user and service provider; obtaining client data that includes an identifier for the user; detecting that the interaction includes an authentication of a [wallet] identifier associated with the user by the service provider; generating an association between the client data and [wallet] identifier in real-time; and outputting an identity asset that includes the association as integrating the client data with the [wallet] identifier and controlling access to content via digital service based on the identity asset” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “commercial or legal interactions”, specifically including business relations (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for data management and sharing between a client and service provider by integrating personal client data and wallet-based user data into a repository. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a processing device, client device, service provider system, blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a block-chain and blockchain-based identifier, merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a processing device, client device, service provider system, blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a block-chain and blockchain-based identifier to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, a processing device, client device, service provider system, blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a block-chain and blockchain-based identifier perform the steps or functions of the “monitoring an interaction between a client/user and service provider; obtaining client data that includes an identifier for the user; detecting that the interaction includes an authentication of a [wallet] identifier associated with the user by the service provider; generating an association between the client data and [wallet] identifier in real-time; and outputting an identity asset that includes the association as integrating the client data with the [wallet] identifier and controlling access to content via digital service based on the identity asset”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of the processing device, client device, service provider system, blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a block-chain and blockchain-based identifier, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using the processing device, client device, service provider system, blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a block-chain and blockchain-based identifier to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of managing or mapping client data with identifiers. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the processing device, client device, service provider system, blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a block-chain and blockchain-based identifier perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of managing or mapping client data with identifiers. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of the processing device, client device, service provider system, blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a block-chain and blockchain-based identifier to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe details of a transaction between a user and service provider associated with a wallet and the respective details of a user identifier and a wallet identify, further elaborating on the abstract idea of managing or mapping client data with identifiers. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “a blockchain wallet and identity registry”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 1-8 and 22-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUSH et al. (US 2024/0005354 A1) in view of Padmanabhan (US 2021/0182773 A1) and in further view of Leung et al. (US 2023/0209116 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 22 and 28, RUSH discloses a method/system/computer-readable media comprising:
monitoring, by a processing device, an interaction between a client device associated with a user and a digital service provided by a service provider system; (¶0052, ¶0054)
obtaining, by the processing device, client data that includes a non- blockchain based identifier for the user; (¶0057, ¶0066, ¶0068, ¶0069, ¶0079, ¶0086)
generating, by the processing device, an association between the client data and the blockchain identifier in real-time; and (¶0059, ¶0068, ¶0069, ¶0072, ¶0079, ¶0086, ¶0087)
outputting, by the processing device, an identity asset that includes the association as integrating the client data with the blockchain identifier (¶0059 ¶0072, ¶0073, ¶0079, ¶0086)
RUSH does not disclose: detecting, by the processing device, that the interaction includes authentication of a blockchain identifier associated with the user with a blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a blockchain in real-time by the service provider system.
Padmanabhan however discloses: detecting, by the processing device, that the interaction includes authentication of a blockchain identifier associated with the user with a blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a blockchain in real-time by the service provider system (¶0023, ¶0024, ¶0027, ¶0032, ¶0042)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of RUSH to include detecting, by the processing device, that the interaction includes authentication of a blockchain identifier associated with the user with a blockchain network operating as an infrastructure of a blockchain in real-time by the service provider system, as disclosed in Padmanabhan, in order to provide a system for implementing asset verification and validation with related information stored in the blockchain (see Padmanabhan ¶0001).
The combination of RUSH and Padmanabhan does not disclose: the concept of a generating…a blockchain identifier in real-time and controlling, by the processing device, access to digital content via a digital service based on the identity asset.
Leung however discloses:
generating…an identifier in real-time (¶0029 “access tokens specific to a given user account are generated "on-the-fly" (e.g., in real-time or near real-time) when a request to access digital content is received)”)
controlling, by the processing device, access to digital content via a digital service based on the identity asset (¶0029, ¶0039, ¶0041, ¶0052, ¶0054-¶0056)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of RUSH to include “controlling, by the processing device, access to digital content via a digital service based on the identity asset”, as disclosed in Leung, in order to provide a system for generation and use of a system that integrates various content provider platform(s) with a payment platform to provide, access to digital content provided by the content provider platforms (see Leung ¶0020).
Regarding Claims 2, 22 and 29, RUSH discloses wherein the interaction includes a digital transaction between the user and the service provider system using a blockchain wallet and the blockchain identifier is associated with the blockchain wallet (¶0050, ¶0052, ¶0056).
Regarding Claims 3, 23 and 30, RUSH discloses wherein the non-blockchain based identifier includes one or more of an email address, a phone number, a username, or a client device identifier (¶0032).
Regarding Claim 4, 24 and 31, RUSH discloses obtaining, by the processing device, historical blockchain transaction data associated with the blockchain identifier and augmenting the identity asset with the historical blockchain transaction data (¶0085).
Regarding Claim 5, RUSH discloses wherein the generating the association includes determining a correlation between an event associated with the non-blockchain based identifier and a blockchain event associated with the blockchain identifier (¶0059, ¶0068, ¶0069, ¶0072, ¶0079, ¶0086, ¶0087)
Regarding Claims 6, 25 and 32, RUSH discloses generating, by the processing device, an identity registry that includes the identity asset and at least one additional identity asset (¶0060).
Regarding Claims 7 and 26, RUSH discloses wherein the identity registry includes a plurality of audience segments that each include two or more identity assets, the plurality of audience segments generated based on correlations between blockchain identifiers and non-blockchain based identifiers for the respective identity assets (¶0060, ¶0072-¶0073).
Regarding Claims 8 and 27, RUSH, Padmanabhan and Leung discloses the invention as above.
Padmanabhan further discloses: wherein the identity asset is associated with a usage rule that regulates use of the identity asset and an access rule that regulates access rights of the identity asset (¶0071, ¶0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of RUSH to include wherein the identity asset is associated with a usage rule that regulates use of the identity asset and an access rule that regulates access rights of the identity asset, as disclosed in Padmanabhan, in order to provide a system for implementing asset verification and validation with related information stored in the blockchain (see Padmanabhan ¶0001).
Conclusion
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 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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697