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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has capitalized every step in the method. Every claim should read as a complete sentence, and should not have random capitalization throughout that sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 8, 10, 13, 14, and 17 are indecipherable due to the font size used in the drawings. The drawings contain text which is illegible or difficult to read. 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.
Figures 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, and 24 also contains text that is difficult to read but not indecipherable.
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.
Claims 16-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, this claim contain the trademark/trade name Quick Response code or QR code. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a two-dimensional barcode, also known as a matrix barcode, and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 17-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 16.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as facilitating regulatory compliant anonymous user access to a first regulated service.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 1-6 and 13-20) and machine (claims 7-12).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1 and 7
Claims 1 and 7 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
facilitating regulatory compliant anonymous user access to a first regulated service provided by a first service provider,
accessing a first portion of validated Personal Identifiable Information (PII) data relating to a first user;
receiving a first user request to authorize the first user's access to the first regulated service;
identifying a first set of regulatory compliance requirements for permitting user access to the first regulated service;
analyzing the first portion of validated PII data and the first set of regulatory compliance requirements to determine if the first user satisfies the regulatory compliance requirements for permitting first user access to the first regulated service;
generating, in response to determining that the first user satisfies the regulatory compliance requirements, a first unique digital SmartPass token certifying that the first user satisfies the regulatory compliance requirements for permitting first user access to the first regulated service, wherein the first SmartPass token does not include unencrypted PII data relating to the first user;
transmitting a cryptographically signed version of the first SmartPass token to the first service provider certifying that the first user satisfies the regulatory compliance requirements for permitting first user access to the first regulated service; and
facilitating, using the first SmartPass token, the first user with regulatory compliant access to the first regulated service.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice and commercial/legal interactions then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea/limitations of:
facilitating user login and pairing;
receiving a user login or registration request;
sending a provider authentication request including a timestamp, provider ID, and signature to a service provider;
generating a time-limited token for initiating pairing including a timestamp, expiration, provider ID, session ID, and signature;
responding to the provider authentication request and sending the time-limited token;
initiating a connection;
publishing a QR code generated for pairing, displaying it for scanning;
scanning the QR code and reading the data contained within, including a unique token;
requesting pairing by sending user's Personal Identifiable Information (PII), User Location Data (ULD), User Approximate Location (UAL), Unique Identifier, and the scanned token, all unencrypted and signed using a private key;
matching session ID with the authentication request and user pairing request;
requesting regulatory compliance regulations based on provider ID and UAL;
processing the request and retrieving regulatory compliance regulations based on provider ID and UAL;
returning requested regulatory compliance regulations;
determining if the user's pairing request is approved or rejected based on validity checks;
if approved, generating a SmartPass token and storing it under the user's account; and
informing the service provider and the SmartPass Regulator Authority Monitoring of the approval or rejection, with details of the pairing request and the user's unique identifier.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice and commercial/legal interactions then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a data network, at least one processor, a plurality of instructions, a non-transient memory, a first server system, a service provider app, a SmartPass mobile application, a secure WebSocket connection, a SmartPass Jurisdiction Regulation Database, a computerized system, memory, instructions; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
receiving a first user request;
transmitting a cryptographically signed version of the first SmartPass token;
receiving a user login or registration request
sending a provider authentication request;
sending the time-limited token;
displaying [a QR code] for scanning;
sending a provider authentication request;
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing of information and do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a data network, at least one processor, a plurality of instructions, a non-transient memory, a first server system, a service provider app, a SmartPass mobile application, a secure WebSocket connection, a SmartPass Jurisdiction Regulation Database, a computerized system, memory, instructions; amount to no more than mere components to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitations of:
receiving a first user request;
transmitting a cryptographically signed version of the first SmartPass token;
receiving a user login or registration request
sending a provider authentication request;
sending the time-limited token;
displaying [a QR code] for scanning;
sending a provider authentication request;
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing and do not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when clamed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See MPEP 2106.05(g). See Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0081-0085], [0244-0259], [305-328], [0341] about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 2-6, 8-15, and 17-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 7, and 16. Therefore, claims 2-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 13-15, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claim 7. In addition, the recite the additional elements of:
Receiving, by the first server system, an initial communication;
Transmitting, by the first server system, a computer-readable code representing the SmartPass token;
This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, because as drafted the limitations are mere data gathering and storing of information. These limitations do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 13-15 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
Examiner has conducted a prior art search in view of the new claims and cannot provide an art rejection at this time
Examiner would like to cite but not rely upon the following references describing the state of the art.
US 12307410 B2 Schlicher; Bob G. et al.
US 20140108961 A1 SUNDSTEN; FREDERICK
US 20200211011 A1 Anderson; Thomas G.
US 20200374129 A1 DILLES; Jacob S. et al.
US 20210176240 A1 Rose; Evan Chase
US 20210314328 A1 Simons; Jordan
US 20250219824 A1 Gutierrez-Sheris; Luis Eduardo
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694