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 .
This office correspondence is in response to “Amendment and Response under 37 C.F.R. 1.111 filed on September 26, 2025 in response to a non-final office action dated June 26, 2025.
Claims 1 – 6, 8, and 15 – 18 are pending.
Claims 1 – 2 and 15 are amended.
Claims 7 and 9 – 14 are cancelled.
Claims 1 – 6, 8, and 15 – 18 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/26/2025 have been fully considered.
In regard to claims 1 – 6, 8, and 15 – 16 which were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 at least one argument is persuasive to the rejection of claims from the last office action and said rejections are withdrawn, but applicant’s amendment necessitated a new search and consideration resulting in a new grounds of rejections for pre-existing claims 1 – 6, 8, and 15 – 16, and newly added claims 17 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103. The examiner here now responds to each argument. Underlined text indicates claim language that was amended since the last office action.
In regard to the objection for the title of the invention, the applicant has successfully amended the specification to provide a new title “Authentication Systems and Methods Using an Existence Confirmation Result”. Therein the objection is withdrawn
In regard to claims 1 – 6 and 15 – 16, the applicant argues that the prior art combination of Blackburn and Sutton fails to teach, anticipate or suggest:
“the management process generates display data which is for the non-fungible token and which includes a display object corresponding to the existence confirmation result, the display object being a level given to the non-fungible token.” (as recited in claim 1 and substantially replicated in claim 15)
The applicant states:
“ . . . The Office Action relies on Blackburn for teaching a management apparatus that
manages tokens associated with verified identities. However, Blackburn does not teach
generating "display data which is for the non-fungible token" that includes "a display object corresponding to the existence confirmation result" where "the display object being a level given to the non-fungible token." While Blackburn discusses confidence scores in paragraph [0082], these confidence scores are internal computational values used during the verification process. Blackburn states "the verification system can determine a confidence score that is associated with the digital identity record." This confidence score is not described as being converted into display data or a display object that represents a level given to a token.
The Office Action cites Sutton for providing the non-fungible token element. For the
display data feature of original claim 7, the Office Action points to Sutton paragraphs [0032]-[0033]. However, Sutton's disclosure relates to experiential displays such as "a holographic display, a light field display, a 3D audio experience" that are triggered when a user with an experiential token arrives at a location. These are experiences provided to token holders, not "display data which is for the non-fungible token" that includes "a display object corresponding to the existence confirmation result" where "the display object being a level given to the non- fungible token."
Moreover, the claim recites that "the display object being a level given to the non- fungible token" based on "the existence confirmation result." This creates a specific data visualization structure where the quality or status of the existence confirmation is represented as a hierarchical level associated with the NFT itself. The specification provides support for this feature at paragraph [0143], which states "the management apparatus C1 may be configured to give a higher level to the non-fungible data, as the update date and time of the non-fungible data is closer to current date and time." Paragraph [0144] further describes "the management apparatus C1 may be configured to give a higher level to the non-fungible data, as the value of the score included in the non-fungible data is higher."
This level-based display system provides a visual indicator of the trustworthiness or quality of the existence confirmation associated with the NFT. Neither Blackburn nor Sutton teaches or suggests generating such level-based display data that corresponds to existence confirmation results and is given to non-fungible tokens.
Even if one were to combine Blackburn's identity verification system with Sutton's NFT technology, such a combination would not result in the claimed invention. Blackburn is directed to identity verification using biometric data and creating digital representations for authentication purposes. Sutton is directed to location-based experiential tokens that provide access to experiences at specific locations. Neither reference addresses the technical problem of visually representing the quality or status of existence confirmation results as levels associated with NFTs.
The claimed invention provides a specific technical solution where "the management
process generates display data which is for the non-fungible token and which includes a display object corresponding to the existence confirmation result, the display object being a level given to the non-fungible token." This allows users and systems to quickly assess the reliability or recency of existence confirmations through visual level indicators associated with the NFTs, addressing a different technical problem than those contemplated by the cited references.
For the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner
reconsider the rejection in light of the amended claim language and withdraw the rejection of Claims 1-16 (Claims 7, 9-14 are cancelled) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. . . .” (Applicant’s Remarks 8 – 10)
In response to the applicant’s arguments:
The applicant amended independent claims 1 and 15 to generate display data which is for the non-fungible token and which includes a display object corresponding to the existence confirmation result, the display object being a level given to the non-fungible token. The added feature is documented in Fig. 15 of the instant specification and the supporting disclosure, and changes the scope of the claims. In light of the claim amendments, and upon review of the applicant’s arguments, said arguments were persuasive to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections as being unpatentable over Blackburn and Sutton, but the change is scope triggered a new search and consideration that discovered new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 and said claims are therein rejected as being unpatentable over Blackburn et al. (U.S. 2025/0165575 A1; herein referred to as Blackburn) in view of Sekniqi et al. (U.S. 2024/0422011 A1; herein referred to as Sekniqi). The new prior art Sekniqi is analogous art that discloses the use of the token to provide a display that functions as a digital identification card and as such provides a teaching to the claim language as currently recited under a broad reasonable interpretation. The rejections to the amended claims are described below.
The examiner recommends that the applicant review the specification for disclosure that if integrated into the independent claims would distinguish the amended claims from the cited prior art. For example, the claims should more approximate Fig. 15., as the current recitation provides for broad interpretation of what the “level” element is. The applicant is invited to contact the examiner for an interview to discuss how to move the prosecution forward.
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Priority
This application is National Stage Entry of PCT/JP2023/021160 filed on June 7, 2023, the contents of all of which are incorporated herein by reference, in their entirety. The applicant is entitled to a priority date of 6/7/2023.
35 USC § 101 Analysis
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.
The claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter and are not rejected under 35 USC 101 because of a judicial exception. The claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application under Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis described in MPEP 2016.04(d). The claims are directed to non-abstract improvements in computer related technology. A claim is non-statutory when it is directed to a judicial exception (e.g. either one of mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) without significantly more. The claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception. Instead, the claimed invention is directed to a technological improvement to an authentication system that uses biometrics, the embodiments comprise a management apparatus, information process apparatus, a management method, and a computer readable medium to store and execute the method of which is to obtain an existence confirmation result and manage said result in association with a non-fungible token. The ordered steps of the claimed invention provides a specific improvement to an authentication system which is fair and has high transparency. Therein the claimed invention is statutory under 35 USC 101.
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 – 3, 5, 8, and 15 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn et al. (U.S. 2025/0165575 A1; herein referred to as Blackburn) in view of Sekniqi et al. (U.S. 2024/0422011 A1; herein referred to as Sekniqi).
In regard to claim 1, Blackburn teaches A management apparatus (see ¶ [0012] “. . . A digital system for management of a digital identity associated with an individual comprising: a capture device wherein the capture device is adapted to capture biometric information, alphanumeric information, graphical information and any combination; a verification system in communications with the capture device; and wherein the verification system is adapted to create a digital representation of the individual according to the biometric information, receive a digital envoy creation request, transmit the digital representation request to an authority system; create a digital envoy uniquely associated with the digital representation according to receiving creation authorization from the authority system, and store the digital envoy on a portable media . . .” comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor (see ¶ [0120] “ . . . The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process; an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor . . .”) executing:
an obtaining process comprising obtaining an existence confirmation result (see ¶ [0035] “. . .the system can provide for the verification and authentication of a digital identity without the need to access a governmental verification system each time the identity needs to be verified. The system can improve computerized systems by immutable storing tokens that are associated with verified identities allowing the token to serve as part of the verified and authentic identification process. The token can be digitally stored on a portable media such as an identification card or other card. The token can be a digital representation, such as a hash, and can be stored on a digital media that is included on the identification card, which is a result of confirmation on existence of a subject (see Fig. 8, ¶ [0084] “. . . Referring to FIG. 8, a user 802 has biometric information 804 that can include information 808 that can be transmitted to a verification system 807. A verification response 806 can be provided back to the user. Another user information can make a verification request 822 that is sent to an identification system 812 resulted in a response 824 which can all be stored on the immutable ledger 800. The user capture device 830, can capture identity information such as biometric information and provide a digital representation (e.g., token) that can be used to send a request 822 to an identification system 812 that can result in the digital representation being retrieved from the immutable storage system. If the information sent to the identification system matches the information retrieved from multiple immutable storage systems, a response 824 can be sent that affirms that the identity presented is authentic. In one example, the user of the capture device captures the presenting individual's facial image. The presenting individual also provides a digital envoy that is associated with the presenting individual. The capture device or identification system retrieves the digital representation of the individual from the immutable storage system using the digital envoy (e.g., QR code, bar code, alpha numeric code and the like). The provided facial information is compared to the facial information of the digital representation and if a match occurs, the identity is authenticated. . . .”); and
a management process comprising managing the existence confirmation result in association with a (see ¶ [0048] “. . . The identity recording system can be used for a variety of purposes, including verifying digital identities, verifying physical objects and their association with digital representations, validating events and activities, and managing tokens to facilitate authentication. The system ensures that digital representations are properly associated with physical individuals and objects. The system provides multi-factor identity verification using biometric data (e.g., facial recognition, vascular mapping, cardiac rhythm, DNA), device metadata, temporal data, geolocation, and source-of-truth validation to ensure that the digital identity is authentic, immutable, and securely stored in a self-sovereign digital wallet. One of the key enhancements over prior art is the ability to mitigate security risks associated with biometric authentication, including replay attacks, synthetic identity fraud, and deepfake impersonation attempts. The system employs continuous liveness detection algorithms, multi-source biometric comparison, behavioral analysis, and cryptographic validation to ensure that biometric inputs are genuinely captured from a live user and not replayed from pre-recorded data . . .”).
Blackburn fails to explicitly teach,
However Sekniqi teaches the management process generates display data which is for the non-fungible token and which includes a display object (e.g. associated image of the NTT) corresponding to the existence confirmation result, the display object being a level given to the non-fungible token (see Sekniqi ¶ [0035] “. . . The identity verification module 310 can also verify identity via the NTT similarly to analyzing NFTs for unique identification codes and metadata. As an example, a given NTT provided by the remote platform(s) 304 for identity verification can cause display of a picture, which can function as a digital identification card. The picture can indicate the function and nature of the NTT credential, such as citizenship, authorized financial transactions, etc. for the NTT holder. The NTT based verification performed by the identity verification module 310 advantageously may be non-interactive so that the subject blockchain asset or transaction does not have to query an external API call to an identity provider since blockchain assets do not have such a capability. In some embodiments, an NTT as disclosed herein has an associated image for user interface purposes. For example, an American flag may be used for NTTs that refer to or identify US citizens, people or businesses who reside in the US, and the like. In this way, the computing platform(s) 302 may receive an image representation that indicates a characteristic of the NTT, such as the function and nature of the NTT credential. The NTT may function as a contract that exists on the blockchain to verify the NTT holder's identity without revealing sensitive personal information. Since the NTT can be held on the NTT holder's blockchain address, assets on the blockchain can verify whether the digital identification (e.g., similar to an identification tag) of the NTT is accurate as part of a KYC type identification/credential check before authorizing cryptocurrency financial transactions with the blockchain. . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s application to incorporate a system and method for providing digital credentials using a non-transferable token that is also non-fungible for identity verification and which can be displayed to function as a digital identification card, as taught by Sekniqi, into a system and method to create and store a unique digital identity using biometric authentication, immutable storage, and self-sovereign identity management, wherein an identity capture device can be adapted to receive biometric information from the identity capture device, create a digital representation, and store the digital representation on a portable media so that the digital representation can be compared with captured information to determine authenticity, as taught by Blackburn. Such incorporation provides that an NFT/NTT token can be used as the authentication evidence for the digital identity that represents the existence information.
In regard to claim 2, the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi teaches wherein:
the management process includes an issuing process comprising issuing the non-fungible token (see Sekniqi ¶ [0018] “. . . The NTTs of the present disclosure can function as proof of identity without requiring an external API call that the blockchain may be incapable of performing. A validity check as disclosed herein may include a signature check, checking of the data payload, and/or zero knowledge proof of possession of an NTT. In particular, NTTs or a signature verification associated with the NTTs may be required before permitting a particular user account or blockchain address to interact with particular assets. The signature verification may be based on a public-private key cryptographic (e.g., security) verification or a zero-knowledge proof. As an example, an NTT holder may use a digitally signed statement (e.g., attribute values pairs) from the NTT issuer or a proof based on the NTT credential to complete a credential check without disclosing sensitive personal information. As discussed herein, issuers of NTTs may conduct robust security verification of user identity and other relevant information prior to issuing an NTT to a particular public blockchain address controlled by a corresponding user whose identity is being verified . . .”).
The motivation to combine Sekniqi with Blackburn Is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein. Additionally, Sekniqi issues a NTT token to complete a credential check.
In regard to claim 3, the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi teaches wherein:
the obtaining process obtains time information associated with the existence confirmation result (see Blackburn ¶ [0070] “ . . . the identity recording system can be used to capture biometric information of an individual. This information can be used to create the digital identity record which can be stored on the immutable storage system and associated with a digital envoy. The digital identity record can represent that certain individual biometric information was captured at a specific location, date, and time and to a certain surety level. The date and time can by temporal information that can be included or used to create the digital identity record. In one embodiment, the user of the identity recording system can have the user's information captured as well do that the digital identity record can include information concerning the creator of the record. When the identify record is captured the individual subject to the identify record can travel to another location. At the other locations, the individual can present the digital envoy and biometric information so that an authentication system can determine that the presenting individual of the digital envoy and the biometric information is the same individual as when the digital identity record was captured. This embodiment can be advantageous when facilitating immigration wherein the individual may not have a governmental issued identification. The system allows for a digital identity to be associated with the individual and which can be later authenticated to show that the same individual is identified . . .”) ; and
the management process manages the existence confirmation result in association with the time information (see Sekniqi ¶ [0027] “ . . . the credential authority can have the power to revoke the NTT or set an expiration or time out parameter at which point the NTT expires. In some embodiments, an NTT may be a credential that is issued to someone who carries out an action on a website, someone who reached a certain level in a game, and the like. . . .” see Sekniqi ¶ [0037] “ . . . The identity verification module 310 can also be configured to set an expiration time and/or to revoke the issued NTT based on settings agreed to by the NTT issuer and the requesting party. As discussed herein, the identity verification module 310 beneficially does not need any external action by the requesting party nor receive any sensitive personal information of the requesting party for authentication. Thus, the requesting party can be authenticated without disclosing significant confidential information, such as using a non-interactive secure link protocol. . . .”see Sekniqi ¶ [0055] “ . . . , the process 500 may further include determining, by the issuer of the non-transferable credential, an expiration time for the non-transferable credential. . . .”).
The motivation to combine Sekniqi with Blackburn Is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein. Additionally, Sekniqi uses time information to determine an expiration time for the NFT.
In regard to claim 5, the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi teaches wherein:
the existence confirmation result includes a score relating to the confirmation on the existence (see Blackburn ¶ [0082] “ . . . the verification system can determine a confidence score that is associated with the digital identity record. For example, if the verification system is a governmental system, the confidence score can be higher than if the verification system is self-authentication system. The authentication system can also report a confidence value with the authentication approval. For example, if the biometric image captured by the authentication system is a partial match to the biometric information in the digital identity record, the confidence value associated with the authentication system response can be lower than if the biometric image captured by the authentication system is a complete match. The confidence score can also be higher when additional attributes of digital identity creation match information in the government record. For example, if the digital identity is created at a location that is also referenced on the government record, then the certainty level will be higher than if the digital identity is created at a location other than what is identified on the government identification record. Additionally, multiple validations of the individual at a specific location through biometrics would generate an experience history of continual biometric validations over an extended period of time further increasing the certainty level. . . “).
In regard to claim 8, the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi teaches wherein: the non-fungible token is a token set to be non-transferable (see Sekniqi ¶ [0016] “ . . . Non-transferable tokens (NTT) may advantageously provide a mechanism for global verification of parties in transactions. The NTT is an asset that is associated with an address on the blockchain. In some embodiments, an NTT may optionally include additional credentials as well as encrypted or encoded data payloads. Moreover, the NTT may verify identities of parties with non-interactive proofs of identity (e.g., in a smart contract or any other asset transaction). Being non-interactive may be advantageous because certain blockchain implementations may be incapable of executing external third party application programming interface (API) calls for request information required for performing interactive proofs of identity. The NTT may be used for identify verification prior to requested execution or function call invocations of blockchain transactions (e.g., swap function) for permitting execution upon properly verifying identity based on the NTT assigned to a requesting blockchain address. As an example, the NTT verification may be performed by a centralized exchange or through an augmented function call that has a NTT verification pre-requisite. In particular, blockchain transactions interacting with the NTT can check the signature associated with the issuers of the NTT. . . .” see Sekniqi ¶ [0023]” . . . The NTT can function similarly to a non-fungible token (NFT). In particular, the NTT can be a unique token that is not sub dividable into a smaller unit. That is, one NTT cannot be divided into smaller than one token and is unique such that there cannot be another instance of the same NTT. . . “).
The motivation to combine Sekniqi with Blackburn Is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein. Additionally, Sekniqi establishes that the NFT to be a non-transferable token (therein an NTT).
In regard to claim 15, Blackburn teaches A management method (see ¶ [0046] “ . . . The present invention relates to a system and method for creating, storing, managing, and validating digital identities in a secure, portable, and privacy-preserving manner. The system leverages immutable storage, biometric verification, self-sovereign identity management, and decentralized authentication to provide a solution that mitigates identity fraud, enhances user privacy, and facilitates anonymous validation of identity attributes. . . “)comprising:
obtaining an existence confirmation result (see ¶ [0035] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein), which is a result of confirmation on existence of a subject (see Fig. 8, ¶ [0084] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein);
managing the existence confirmation result in association with a (see ¶ [0048] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein),
the obtaining, managing, and generating being carried out by a management apparatus (see ¶ [0012] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein).
Blackburn fails to explicitly teach,
However Sekniqi teaches generating display data which is for the non-fungible token and which includes a display object (e.g. associated image of the NTT) corresponding to the existence confirmation result, the display object being a level given to a non-fungible token (see Sekniqi ¶ [0035] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein).
The motivation to combine Sekniqi with Blackburn is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
In regard to claim 16, the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi teaches A non-transitory storage medium in which a program is stored (see Blackburn ¶ [0120] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein),
the program causing a computer to function as a management apparatus recited in claim 1 (see Blackburn ¶ [0012] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein),
the program causing the computer to execute (see Blackburn ¶ [0120] “ . . . In general, the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as a processor or a memory described as being configured to perform a task may be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configured to perform the task at a given time or a specific component that is manufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term ‘processor’ refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores configured to process data, such as computer program instructions . . .”):
the obtaining process (see Blackburn ¶ [0035] Fig. 8, ¶ [0084] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein) and the management process (see Blackburn ¶ [0048], Sekniqi ¶ [0035] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein).
The motivation to combine Sekniqi with Blackburn is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn et al. (U.S. 2025/0165575 A1; herein referred to as Blackburn) in view of Sekniqi et al. (U.S. 2024/0422011 A1; herein referred to as Sekniqi) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 5, 8, and 15 – 16 in further view of Sutton-Shearer et al. (2023/0027380 A1; herein referred to as Sutton).
In regard to claim 4, the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi teaches wherein:
the obtaining process obtains position (e.g. location) information (see Blackburn ¶ [0060] “ . . the presenter initially opens a credit account, such as applying for a credit card. In the process, the presenter presenter's facial image is captured, verified, and stored when the account is approved so that the account and the facial information of the presenter are associated. The presenter could also associate their digital identity envoy stored in their self sovereign wallet. When opening a credit account it is typical for the lending institution to conduct KYC and underwriting. The presenter could validate themselves and their financial, credit, and other relevant information to the approval process by using their immutable identity that was created through verification to a government source of truth with certainty rating. This self sovereign wallet is a zero trust biometric access storage medium and is then associated with their credit account. The account is opened (e.g., a card sent to the presenter) and the card can have the digital identity authentication instructions stored on it or the account number that can be used to retrieve the digital identity information. When the presenter then wishes to conduct a transaction, such as a purchase with a credit card, the presenter can interact with a transaction system. The presenter can have the facial information captured at the transaction location which can then be compared with the digital identity information and verified and authenticated. This can be in person or during online transactions ensuring that the credit card can only authorized and utilized with a biometric validation of the account holder. Additionally, other attributes of the digital identity, such as location and temporal references can be used for further validation and authorization purposes. . . .”);
The combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi fails to explicitly teach,
However Sutton teaches and the management process manages the existence confirmation result in association with the position (e.g. location) information (see Sutton ¶¶ [0014-0015] “ . . . Another aspect of the invention relates to minting and allocating cryptographic experiential tokens based on a location-based event and entitling the user to access an experience. The method may include storing first location-based criteria. Exemplary implementations may include determining that a user satisfies the first location-based criteria. Exemplary implementations may include allocating an experiential token to a digital wallet associated with the user. Exemplary implementations may include enabling the user to access the experience in response to determining the user holds the experiential token in its digital wallet. Yet another aspect of the invention relates to granting token-gated access to a resource at a location based on location triggered events and providing access to token-gated content in response to a user satisfying specified token criteria. The method may include storing location-based criteria. Exemplary implementations may include storing a smart contract configured to mint a token and allocate it to a user wallet in response to a user's location satisfying first location-based criteria. Exemplary implementations may include obtaining location information from a user device. Exemplary implementations may include, in response to a determination that the location information satisfies the location-based criteria, invoking the smart contract to mint a token and allocate the token to the user wallet. Exemplary implementations may include storing a token-gated resource identifier for a resource. Exemplary implementations may include storing token criteria. Exemplary implementations may include, in response to a determination that the user satisfies the token criteria, granting the user access to the resource. . .”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s application to incorporate a system and method for creating and deploying location-based event-triggered cryptographic tokens for gated access to location-based experience, as taught by Sutton into a system and method to create and store a unique digital identity using biometric authentication, immutable storage, and self-sovereign identity management, wherein an identity capture device can be adapted to receive biometric information from the identity capture device, create a digital representation, and store the digital representation on a portable media so that the digital representation can be compared with captured information to determine authenticity, and providing digital credentials using a non-transferable token that is also non-fungible for identity verification and which can be displayed to function as a digital identification card, as taught by the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi. Such incorporation utilizes other attributes of the digital identity, such as location and temporal references, for further validation and authorization purposes.
In regard to claim 6, the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi teaches wherein:
the obtaining process obtains an existence-confirmation-result-for updating (see Blackburn Fig. 10 ¶ [0082] “ . . . , the process of modifying user authentication workflows to incorporate pass/fail results from the system, ensuring secure and efficient user verification is shown. The workflow begins at step 1000, where the existing authentication system is modified to communicate with the platform. This modification enables the authentication system to send verification requests to the system whenever a user attempts to authenticate. At step 1001, the system processes the authentication request by performing a series of checks, including: identity validation for verifying the user's credentials against immutable records stored on the platform; biometric verification, confirming the user's identity using facial recognition, fingerprint scans, or other biometric data, if required; business rules compliance, evaluating the user against preconfigured business rules, such as location restrictions, account status, or age verification requirements; the system then returns a pass or fail result to the verification system. Pass occurs when the user passes the verification checks, and the authentication system then grants access to the requested resources or services. If the user fails the checks, the system denies access. Additionally, it may trigger follow-up actions, such as notifying the user of the failure or requesting further identity verification steps. This workflow ensures that user authentication processes are enhanced by leveraging the system's robust verification capabilities, providing advanced security, regulatory compliance, and real-time decision-making . . .”);
The combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi fails to explicitly teach,
However Sutton teaches and
the management process updates, with use of the existence- confirmation-result-for-updating (e.g. second location), the existence confirmation result associated with the non-fungible token (see Sutton ¶ ¶ [0105-0107] “ . . . An operation 324 may include storing second location-based (or other) criteria. Operation 324 may be performed by one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions including a module that is the same as or similar to criterion storing module 208, in accordance with one or more implementations. An operation 326 may include determining that a user satisfies the second location-based (or other) criteria. Operation 326 may be performed by one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions including a module that is the same as or similar to user determination module 220, in accordance with one or more implementations. An operation 328 may include determining that a digital wallet associated with the user holds an experiential token related to the second location-based (or other) criteria. Operation 328 may be performed by one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions including a module that is the same as or similar to wallet determination module 226, in accordance with one or more implementations . . .”).
The motivation to combine Sutton with the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi is described for the rejection of claim 4 and is incorporated herein. Additionally, Sutton enables the NFT to be used when the existence result is needed for a second location.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn et al. (U.S. 2025/0165575 A1; herein referred to as Blackburn) in view of Sekniqi et al. (U.S. 2024/0422011 A1; herein referred to as Sekniqi) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 5, 8, and 15 – 16 in further view of Naik et al. (U.S. 2018/0165663 A1; herein referred to as Naik).
In regard to claim 17, the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi fails to explicitly teach,
However Naik teaches wherein the level represents how close an update date and time (e.g. pre-defined time-out period) of the non-fungible data is to a current date and time (e.g. pre-staged time) (see Naik ¶ ¶ [0031-0035] “ . . . the ATM screen may display a prompt for the user for entry of a selection of an option for a pre-staged ATM withdrawal. In response to the user's selection of the pre-staged ATM withdrawal option, the ATM screen display may prompt the user for entry of the user's authentication token and PIN. In the aforementioned alternative embodiments, an NFC reader of the NFC-enabled ATM may receive data transmitted from the user's NFC-enabled mobile device when the user approaches the ATM and waves or taps the mobile device on or near the NFC reader of the ATM. Security features for embodiments of the invention may allow the user to impose controls on pre-staged ATM withdrawals, such as limiting pre-staged ATM withdrawals to specific accounts designated by the user, setting withdrawal amount limits by the user, and restricting withdrawals to geographic locations specified by the user. For example, the user may limit pre-staged withdrawals to one or more accounts, such as pre-determined debit cards or other banking relationships of the user, or may specify a particular card of the user that may be used for the purpose of pre-staging withdrawal of money. Thus, if the user limits pre-staged withdrawals to one or more accounts of the user, when entry of the user's selection of the pre-staged withdrawal option is received, a list of accounts displayed on the user's mobile device screen for entry of a selection of an account by the user may include only the accounts to which such withdrawals are limited. Similarly, in embodiments of the invention, a user may apply amount control settings to limit the amount of a pre-staged withdrawal to a pre-defined amount, such as $40. Thus, when the predefined amount setting applied by the user is $40, if the user attempts to pre-stage a withdrawal of more than $40, an error notice may be displayed on the user's mobile device screen reminding the user of the predefined amount setting applied by the user to limit withdrawals to $40. The user may also apply a setting to predetermine a withdrawal time limit for withdrawals, which may be a very short period or a considerably longer period. In the geographic limit aspect of embodiments of the invention, money may only be withdrawn from ATMs that fall within geolocation parameters that may be entered by the user in pre-staging an ATM withdrawal. In such aspect, as an aid to the user or the user's surrogate, a confirmation page may also display a map of the geographic area with locations specified for ATMs that fall within the specified geographic location parameters. An authentication aspect of embodiments of the invention may involve, for example, sending a secure authentication token to a user's registered mobile device, which must be entered from the user's registered mobile device and validated by a host or backend server of the ATM network in order for a withdrawal to be completed. Further, security during pre-staging and pre-staged withdrawals according to embodiments of the invention may be assured by the use of short-lived tokens, which may expire after a pre-defined time-out period. Still further, an alert aspect of embodiments of the invention may integrate an alert feature of the host or backend server of the ATM network to proactively notify a user when withdrawals are made. In the alert aspect of embodiments of the invention, each time a user pre-stages a withdrawal of money from an ATM, whether by the user or a user's surrogate, when the money is withdrawn, an alert may displayed on the user's mobile device screen confirming that the withdrawal that was staged for the user-requested amount from the user-designated account occurred at a particular ATM . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s application to incorporate a system and method for performing pre-staged transactions such as a cash withdrawal suing short time tokens for authentication and displaying a verification, as taught by Naik, into a system and method to create and store a unique digital identity using biometric authentication, immutable storage, and self-sovereign identity management, wherein an identity capture device can be adapted to receive biometric information from the identity capture device, create a digital representation, and store the digital representation on a portable media so that the digital representation can be compared with captured information to determine authenticity, and providing digital credentials using a non-transferable token that is also non-fungible for identity verification and which can be displayed to function as a digital identification card, as taught by the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi. Such incorporation enables an NFT that exists only for the current time transaction.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn et al. (U.S. 2025/0165575 A1; herein referred to as Blackburn) in view of Sekniqi et al. (U.S. 2024/0422011 A1; herein referred to as Sekniqi) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 5, 8, and 15 – 16 in further view of Shah et al. (U.S. 2024/0303662 A1; herein referred to as Shah).
In regard to claim 18, the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi fails to explicitly teach,
However Shah teaches wherein the level represents a score relating to the confirmation on the existence (see Shah ¶ [0072] “ . . . the system computes a “credibility score” that indicates the extent or the likelihood that the selected NFT is involved in fraud, and displays the credibility score to the user. . . “’; see Shah ¶ [0078] “ . . . the system transmits an alert indicating the predicted fraudulent activity. In some cases, the operations of this step refer to, or are performed by, a user interface as described with reference to FIG. 1. In one example, the system provides the alert to a backend of the NFT exchange, which then displays the alert to a user through a web portal to the exchange. In at least one embodiment, the alert includes a credibility score that indicates how trustworthy an NFT or a seller is. . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s application to incorporate a system and method for displaying a credibility score for the NFT which measures the extent as to whether the NFT is fraudulent, as taught by Shah, into a system and method to create and store a unique digital identity using biometric authentication, immutable storage, and self-sovereign identity management, wherein an identity capture device can be adapted to receive biometric information from the identity capture device, create a digital representation, and store the digital representation on a portable media so that the digital representation can be compared with captured information to determine authenticity, and providing digital credentials using a non-transferable token that is also non-fungible for identity verification and which can be displayed to function as a digital identification card, as taught by the combination of Blackburn and Sekniqi. Such incorporation enables the user able to review the status of the existence via display or alert.
Conclusion
There are prior art made of record which are not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. They are listed on the PTO-892 accompanying this action
Applicant's amendment (e.g. adding claims 16 and 17) 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N FIORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9909. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 - 5 PM Mon - Fri..
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 A. Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES N FIORILLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights