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 action is in response to the claims filed 3/06/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 (a method), 9 (a machine), and 15 (a machine) are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-8, filed 3/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 and 18-20 under Rule et al., US 2021/0073844 in view of Kesten et al., US 2016/0373397. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Rule and Kesten does not disclose: “wherein a selection of a status symbol is a parameter used for generation of the encrypted data.” However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rule et al., US 2021/0073844 in view of Gonser et al., US 2013/0019289 (filed 2012).
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 1-14 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.
Independent claims 1 and 9 require:
selected by the contactless card
Applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose a contactless card selecting a status symbol.
Instead, Applicant’s specification appears to disclose an owner/publisher as selecting the symbol:
“the status symbol, or a selection of the status symbol, is stored on the contactless card” Applicant’s specification ¶ 35
“the additional verification data includes a selection of the status symbol 146 by the owner of the user-account.” Applicant’s specification ¶ 70.
“the status symbol 146 can be based on a selection made by the publisher 308.” Applicant’s specification ¶ 77.
“the status symbol 146 may vary based on the owner's 308 selection and other parameters.” Applicant’s specification ¶ 96.
Dependent claim 3 requires:
a subsequent indication indicates the publisher is not authentic[[,]]and the status symbol is not presented.
Applicant’s specification does not appear to describe “a subsequent indication” or any repeated indication.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 require:
wherein a selection of a status symbol is a parameter used for generation of the encrypted data;
“A selection” is an act and it is unclear what “a selection” constitutes as a data parameter for generation of other data. Acts are not data and it is unclear what type of data the act of “a selection” would be interpreted as.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al., US 2021/0073844 (published 2021) in view of Gonser et al., US 2013/0019289 (filed 2012).
As to claims 1, Rule discloses a method/machine comprising:
receiving, by a server, a request to authenticate an identify of a publisher to publish a post; (“At block 435, one or more of the APIs 114 of the review application 113 may transmit the encrypted data, entity ID 115, and application ID 116 to the authentication server 120.” Rule ¶ 48)
receiving, by the server, encrypted data from a computing device, the encrypted data generated by a contactless card and communicated to the server via the computing device; (“block 425, the APIs 114 of the review application 113 may receive the encrypted data 105 and/or the transaction log 106 from the contactless card 101. At block 430, the review application 113 may provide the entity ID 115 of the entity and the application ID 116 of the review application 113 to the APIs 114 of the review application 113. At block 435, one or more of the APIs 114 of the review application 113 may transmit the encrypted data, entity ID 115, and application ID 116 to the authentication server 120.” Rule ¶ 48)
decrypting, by the server, the encrypted data based on a key associated with the contactless card; (“At block 440, the authentication application 123 may attempt to decrypt the encrypted data 105 using the private key 104 associated with the contactless card 101 that is stored by the server 120.” Rule ¶ 48)
authenticating, by the server based on the decryption, the identity of the publisher; and (“If the authentication application 123 decrypts the encrypted data 105 to produce the expected result (e.g., a customer identifier associated with the contactless card 101 stored in the account data 124), the authentication application 123 may validate the encrypted data.” Rule ¶ 48)
in response to the authenticating being successful, sending an indication the publisher is authentic (“The review application 113 may then transmit the review to the review platform 140 with an indication that the review is a verified review.” Rule ¶ 50) Wherein the indication includes a status symbol for the post, indicative that the identity of the publisher is authentic, (“the review application 113 may permit the user to submit a generic review that is not labelled as a validated review. The review platform 140 and/or the review application 113 may distinguish between generic reviews and/or validated reviews in the reviews 141 using any suitable manner, such as with graphics, text, images, and the like.” Rule ¶ 32)
Rule does not disclose:
wherein a selection of a status symbol is a parameter used for generation of the encrypted data;
selected by the
Gonser discloses:
wherein a selection of a status symbol is a parameter used for generation of the encrypted data; (“The card 210 may be displayed in various contexts, such as via a link embedded within or associated with a signed electronic document. The card 210 may be used to validate the associated document's authenticity.” Gonser ¶ 25. “the signed document may include an image that resembles a physical identity card and that includes at least some of the information of the EID card 21.” Gonser ¶ 18. A signature is an encrypted hash.)
selected by the (“an administrative user of a company or other organization may select users from a list and set their signature authority. For some users, this signature authority may be none or zero, meaning that they may not sign for any company-related purposes. If so, a reference to an alternative person who does have signatory authority with respect to matters handled by the user may be included. In such cases, when asked to sign a document, the card holder may reassign the document to the alternative person (and no other person) for signature. For some users it may be defined as or based on a monetary value (e.g., up to $10,000) or as a text string describing the type of contract or document. For other users, the signature authority may be total or complete. The signature authority levels may be enforced by the ESS, such as by refusing to allow users with limited signatory authority (e.g., under $1,000) to sign certain documents (e.g., a purchase order in excess of $1,000).” Gonser ¶ 23)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify Rule with Gonser by providing the electronic identity card of Gonser in the contactless card of Rule. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rule with Gonser in order to allow personalization of electronic signatures with personal information, Gonser ¶ 9, thereby allowing for validation of the signer and confidence in the providence of the signed document.
As to claims 15 and 9, rule discloses a machine comprising:
a computing device; (Rule fig. 1A, computing device 110)
a first server of a social media system; (Rule fig. 1A, review platform 140)
a second server configured to authenticate publishers of posts on the social media system, the second server configured to: (Rule fig. 1A, authentication server 120)
receive, from the first server, a request to authenticate a publisher of a post; (“the functionality provided by the review application 113 and/or the APIs 114 may be integrated into other platforms, such as one or more web pages and/or services provided by the review platform 140.” Rule ¶ 23. “At block 435, one or more of the APIs 114 of the review application 113 may transmit the encrypted data, entity ID 115, and application ID 116 to the authentication server 120.” Rule ¶ 48)
receive, from the computing device, encrypted data generated by a contactless card; (“block 425, the APIs 114 of the review application 113 may receive the encrypted data 105 and/or the transaction log 106 from the contactless card 101. At block 430, the review application 113 may provide the entity ID 115 of the entity and the application ID 116 of the review application 113 to the APIs 114 of the review application 113. At block 435, one or more of the APIs 114 of the review application 113 may transmit the encrypted data, entity ID 115, and application ID 116 to the authentication server 120.” Rule ¶ 48)
perform an authentication operation on the encrypted data; (“At block 440, the authentication application 123 may attempt to decrypt the encrypted data 105 using the private key 104 associated with the contactless card 101 that is stored by the server 120…. If the authentication application 123 decrypts the encrypted data 105 to produce the expected result (e.g., a customer identifier associated with the contactless card 101 stored in the account data 124), the authentication application 123 may validate the encrypted data.” Rule ¶ 48)
in response to the publisher being successfully authenticated, send an authenticated indication to the first server of the social media, (“The review application 113 may then transmit the review to the review platform 140 with an indication that the review is a verified review.” Rule ¶ 50) the first server to publish the post with a status symbol; and (“the review application 113 may permit the user to submit a generic review that is not labelled as a validated review. The review platform 140 and/or the review application 113 may distinguish between generic reviews and/or validated reviews in the reviews 141 using any suitable manner, such as with graphics, text, images, and the like.” Rule ¶ 32)
in response to the publisher not being successfully authenticated, send an unauthenticated indication to the first server of the social media, the first server to publish the post without the status symbol. (“the review application 113 may permit the user to submit a generic review that is not labelled as a validated review. The review platform 140 and/or the review application 113 may distinguish between generic reviews and/or validated reviews in the reviews 141 using any suitable manner, such as with graphics, text, images, and the like.” Rule ¶ 32)
Rule does not disclose:
wherein a selection of a status symbol is a parameter used for generation of the encrypted data;
(claim 9) selected by the
Gonser discloses:
wherein a selection of a status symbol is a parameter used for generation of the encrypted data; (“The card 210 may be displayed in various contexts, such as via a link embedded within or associated with a signed electronic document. The card 210 may be used to validate the associated document's authenticity.” Gonser ¶ 25. “the signed document may include an image that resembles a physical identity card and that includes at least some of the information of the EID card 21.” Gonser ¶ 18. A signature is an encrypted hash.)
selected by the (“an administrative user of a company or other organization may select users from a list and set their signature authority. For some users, this signature authority may be none or zero, meaning that they may not sign for any company-related purposes. If so, a reference to an alternative person who does have signatory authority with respect to matters handled by the user may be included. In such cases, when asked to sign a document, the card holder may reassign the document to the alternative person (and no other person) for signature. For some users it may be defined as or based on a monetary value (e.g., up to $10,000) or as a text string describing the type of contract or document. For other users, the signature authority may be total or complete. The signature authority levels may be enforced by the ESS, such as by refusing to allow users with limited signatory authority (e.g., under $1,000) to sign certain documents (e.g., a purchase order in excess of $1,000).” Gonser ¶ 23)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modify Rule with Gonser by providing the electronic identity card of Gonser in the contactless card of Rule. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rule with Gonser in order to allow personalization of electronic signatures with personal information, Gonser ¶ 9, thereby allowing for validation of the signer and confidence in the providence of the signed document.
As to claim 2, Rule in view of Gonser discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses:
in response to the authenticating not being successful, sending an indication the publisher is not authentic. (“If the authentication application 123 is unable to decrypt the encrypted data to yield an expected result (e.g., a customer identifier of the account associated with the contactless card 101, etc.), the authentication application 123 does not validate the encrypted data 105 and does not confirm whether a transaction in the transaction data 126.” Rule ¶ 39)
As to claims 4, 10 Rule in view of Gonser discloses the method/machine of claims 1, 9, and 15 and further discloses:
further comprising activating, by the server based on the authentication of the user, one or more attributes associated with the post. (“In response, the review application 113 may allow the user to compose and/or submit a verified review 141-1 for the entity associated with the entity ID 115 to the review platform 140. If the server 120 does not transmit the confirmation 127 (and/or the APIs 114 receive an indication of a rejection and/or failure state from the server 120), the review application 113 may restrict the user from submitting a validated review.” Rule ¶ 32)
As to claim 5, Rule in view of Gonser discloses the method of claims 4 and 10 and further discloses:
Wherein the encrypted data includes a response (“the applet 103 may transmit the encrypted data 105 to the APIs 114 of the review application 113 of the computing device 110, e.g., via NFC. In some embodiments, the applet 103 may also transmit data describing one or more transactions from the transaction log 106 to the review application 113. In some embodiments, the review application 113 may confirm whether a match exists between the entity ID 115 of the entity subject to the review and the transaction log 106. If a match exists, the review application 113 may permit generation of a verified review.” Rule ¶ 26) to a challenge sent to the contactless card by the computing device. (“In some embodiments, the APIs 114 of the review application 113 may transmit an entity identifier (ID) 115 to the applet 103. The entity identifier 115 may be any identifier that uniquely identifies an entity (e.g., the restaurant that the user selected to write the review for).” Rule ¶ 25)
As to claim 6, Rule in view of Gonser discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the server is an authentication server (“review application 113 may receive the confirmation 127 from the server 120” Rule ¶ 32) and the displaying of the status symbol comprises instructing, by the authentication server, another server associated with the post to display the status symbol. (“the review application 113 may permit the user to submit a generic review that is not labelled as a validated review. The review platform 140 and/or the review application 113 may distinguish between generic reviews and/or validated reviews in the reviews 141 using any suitable manner, such as with graphics, text, images, and the like.” Rule ¶ 32)
As to claims 7, 13, and 18, Rule in view of Gonser discloses the method/machine of claims 1, 9, 15 and further discloses: wherein displaying the status symbol comprises displaying one or more of an icon, an image, a text, and a user-interface element. (“the review application 113 may permit the user to submit a generic review that is not labelled as a validated review. The review platform 140 and/or the review application 113 may distinguish between generic reviews and/or validated reviews in the reviews 141 using any suitable manner, such as with graphics, text, images, and the like.” Rule ¶ 32).
As to claims 8, 14, and 19 Rule in view of Gonser discloses the method/machine of claims 1, 9, and 15 and further discloses:
wherein displaying the status symbol comprises displaying meta-information associated with the authenticating the identity of the publisher. (“with an indication that the review is verified (e.g., that the user, in fact, ate at the restaurant, paid for services provided by the service provider, etc.).” Rule ¶ 16. Also Rule ¶ 32).
As to claim 11, Rule in view of Gonser discloses the method of claims 4 and 10 and further discloses:
The processor is further configured to:
Determine a sensitivity score or classification for the post; and (see Rule Fig. 5, steps 515, 520, and 525)
Determine to authenticate the identity of the publisher of the post based on the sensitivity score or classification for the post. (“Generally, the APIs 114 may facilitate communications with the contactless cards 101 and/or the servers 120 to confirm that the contactless card 101 was used to pay for a transaction with an entity that is a subject of the review,” Rule ¶ 22. The classification being that a purchase was made)
As to claim 12, Rule in view of Gonser discloses the machine of claim 9 and further discloses:
wherein the indication comprises a status symbol. (“the review application 113 may permit the user to submit a generic review that is not labelled as a validated review. The review platform 140 and/or the review application 113 may distinguish between generic reviews and/or validated reviews in the reviews 141 using any suitable manner, such as with graphics, text, images, and the like.” Rule ¶ 32).
As to claim 16, Rule in view of Gonser discloses the machine of claim 15 and further discloses:
decrypt the encrypted data with a key associated with the contactless card; and compare the decrypted data with stored data associated with the contactless card. (“At block 440, the authentication application 123 may attempt to decrypt the encrypted data 105 using the private key 104 associated with the contactless card 101 that is stored by the server 120…. If the authentication application 123 decrypts the encrypted data 105 to produce the expected result (e.g., a customer identifier associated with the contactless card 101 stored in the account data 124), the authentication application 123 may validate the encrypted data.” Rule ¶ 48)
As to claim 20, Rule in view of Gonser discloses the machine of claim 15 and further discloses:
wherein the encrypted data is encrypted by the contactless card with a private key or a diversified key. (“the contactless card 101 may use a cryptographic algorithm to generate a cryptographic payload of encrypted data 105 based at least in part on the private key 104 stored in the memory 102 of the contactless card 101.” Rule ¶ 24.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al., US 2021/0073844 (published 2021) in view of Gonser et al., US 2013/0019289 (filed 2012), and Mayer, US 2010/0161993 (published 2010).
As to claim 3, Rule in view of Gonser discloses the method of claim 2 and further discloses:
indicates the publisher is not authentic, (“If the authentication application 123 is unable to decrypt the encrypted data to yield an expected result (e.g., a customer identifier of the account associated with the contactless card 101, etc.), the authentication application 123 does not validate the encrypted data 105 and does not confirm whether a transaction in the transaction data 126.” Rule ¶ 39) the status symbol is not presented. (“The review platform 140 and/or the review application 113 may distinguish between generic reviews and/or validated reviews in the reviews 141 using any suitable manner, such as with graphics, text, images, and the like.” Rule ¶ 32)
Rule in view of Gonser does not disclose that the document is re-checked, as claimed: wherein a subsequent indication
Mayer discloses:
wherein a subsequent indication indicates the publisher is not authentic (“The notary may also be able to choose if the document is to expire at a specific date and/or time (step 96).” Mayer ¶ 52).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Rule in view of Gonser with Mayer by utilizing time limitations on the signatures/documents. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rule in view of Gonser with Mayer in order to generate certified time limited documents for information that is intended to be temporary, such as time-limited offers of sale, auctions, or other ephemeral messages.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al., US 2021/0073844 (published 2021) in view of Gonser et al., US 2013/0019289 (filed 2012), and Capurso et al., US 2021/0192494 (published 2021).
As to claims 17 Rule in view of Gonser discloses the method/machine of claims 1, 9, and 15 and further discloses:
wherein the authentication operation comprises the second server to: decrypt the encrypted data with a
Rule does not disclose
Public key,
and verify the encrypted data is signed with the private key associated with the contactless card.
Capurso discloses:
Public key,
and verify the encrypted data is signed with the private key associated with the contactless card.
(“The contactless card 101 may then transmit the digital signatures with the passport data 108 and/or driver's license data 109 to the account application 113, which in turn transmits the digital signatures to the authentication server 120. The authentication application 123 may also verify the digital signature by decrypting the digital signature using a public key associated with the contactless card 101 and stored by the server 120” Capurso ¶ 39)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Rule with Capurso by utilizing the public-key signature and encryption of Capurso in the system of Rule. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rule with Capurso in order to perform authentication and non-repudiation of identification data stored within a contactless card, thereby increasing the confidence that the possessor of the contactless card is whom they claim to be.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bui et al., US 11,755,997, discloses rule based e-signature interface.
Kongtcheu, US 2004/0221162, discloses an electronic notary with signatures and time-stamping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-5165. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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 W CHAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
