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 .
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.
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 05/21/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8, 11-15, 18, 19 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2019/0349371, “Smith”).
As to claim 8, Smith discloses a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory (fig. 10A-D, 11, computing systems) that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
receive a request to establish a relationship between a first user and a second user (fig. 11, 12, step 1240, [0194], receiving a request to establish a relationship between a user (user 1002) and an individual (connection 2025));
receive an identification document associated with the first user; verify the relationship between the first user and the second user based at least in part on the identification document (fig. 12, step 1210-1220, [0192]-[0196], verifying the user and the individual’s relationship to an organization based on user identity record in databases, social media networks, registers, lists, or other sources, fig. 25, user credentials); and
generate a relationship profile based at least in part on first user data associated with the first user and second user data associated with the second user (fig. 12, step 1280, [0198], creating a relationship profile between the user and the individual).
As to claim 11, Smith discloses the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least: obtain user data associated with the first user; and validate the identification document based at least in part on the user data ([0192], [0193]).
As to claim 12, Smith discloses the machine-readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to verify the relationship between the first user and the second user based at least in part on the identification document, further cause the computing device to at least: send the identification document to a processing service; receive extracted document data from the processing service; and verify the relationship based at least in part on the extracted document data ([0191]-[0193], [0195], processing service is a party that verifies the individual’s identity using user identity data such as validator 1007).
As to claim 13, Smith discloses the machine-readable instructions, when executed, further cause the computing device to at least: send a consent request to a client device associated with the second user; and receive a consent response from the client device associated with the second user (fig. 12, steps 1250-1260).
As to claim 14, Smith discloses the machine-readable instructions, when executed, further cause the computing device to at least:
send a request for a second identification document associated with the second user; receive the second identification document; verify an identity of the second user based at least in part on the second identification document; and establish the relationship between the first user and the second user ([0190], [0195], [0202], verifying the individual using IDs/ documentations before establishing the relationship).
As to claim 15, Smith discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a request to establish a relationship between a first user and a second user (fig. 11, 12, step 1240, [0194], receiving a request to establish a relationship between a user (user 1002) and an individual (connection 2025));
receiving, by the computing device, one or more identifiers associated with the first user; verifying, by the computing device, the relationship between the first user and the second user based at least in part on the one or more identifiers (fig. 12, step 1210-1220, [0192]-[0196], verifying the user and the individual’s relationship to an organization based on user identity record in databases, social media networks, registers, lists, or other sources, fig. 25, user credentials);
receiving, by the computing device, consent to establish the relationship (fig. 12, steps 1250-1260, [0195]-[0197]); and
generating, by the computing device, a relationship profile comprising at least first user data associated with the first user and second user data associated with the second user (fig. 12, step 1280, [0198], creating a relationship profile between the user and the individual).
As to claim 18, Smith discloses the one or more identifiers comprises one or more decentralized identifiers (DIDs) or identification documents ([0202], certificate verified by a trusted authority, verified legal name or identification documents).
As to claim 19, Smith discloses sending, by the computing device, a request for a second identification document associated with the second user; receiving, by the computing device, the second identification document; verifying, by the computing device, the identity of the second user based at least in part on the second identification document ([0202]); and establishing, by the computing device, the relationship between the first user and the second user (fig. 12, step 1280, [0198]).
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) 9, 16 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Wadley et al. (US 2017/0076379, “Wadley”).
As to claims 9, 16, Smith does not disclose generating, by the computing device, a trend report based at least in part on the relationship profile, the trend report predicting activities associated with the relationship profile.
Wadley discloses generating, by the computing device, a trend report based at least in part on the relationship profile, the trend report predicting activities associated with the relationship profile (fig. 5, financial trends of a joint account relationship).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wadley’s teachings of financial trends of a joint account to Smith’s teachings of relationship generation in order to receive financial trends and suggestions among users in a relationship.
Claim(s) 10, 17, 20 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Kalin (US 2012/0197754).
As to claims 10, 17, Smith does not disclose generating, by the computing device, a segmentation report based at least in part on the relationship profile, the segmentation report comprising a plurality of segments determined based at least in part on the first user data and the second user data.
Kalin discloses generating, by the computing device, a segmentation report based at least in part on the relationship profile, the segmentation report comprising a plurality of segments determined based at least in part on the first user data and the second user data (fig. 6, 8, [0080], segmentation report of funds of each user towards a purchase in a joint-purchase relationship).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kalin’s teachings of segmentation report in a relationship to Smith’s teachings of relationship generation in order to keep track of individual finances such as amounts of divided funds in a joint-purchase relationship (Kalin, [0080]).
As to claim 20, Smith does not disclose: identifying, by the computing device, one or more potential relationships based at least in part on the one or more identifiers; sending, by the computing device, the one or more potential relationships to a client device associated with the first user; receiving, by the computing device, a selection of relationships from the one or more potential relationships; and adding, by the computing device, the selection of relationships to the relationship profile.
Kalin discloses identifying, by the computing device, one or more potential relationships based at least in part on the one or more identifiers; sending, by the computing device, the one or more potential relationships to a client device associated with the first user; receiving, by the computing device, a selection of relationships from the one or more potential relationships; and adding, by the computing device, the selection of relationships to the relationship profile (abstract, fig. 6, suggesting one or more users to add to a relationship (such as a joint-purchase)).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kalin’s teachings of relationship recommendation to Smith’s teachings of relationship generation in order to provide the user with more prospective relationships based on user interests ([0064]).
Allowable Subject Matter and Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
By interpreting the claims in light of the Specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. Specifically, the prior art of records, individually or in combination, fail to explicitly teach, suggest or render obvious the claimed invention as recited, including a computer system configured to receive a first user decentralized identifier (first user DID) associated with a first user and an issuer decentralized identifier (issuer DID) associated with an issuing authority; identify a blockchain based at least in part on the issuer DID; obtain relationship data from the blockchain based at least in part on the first user DID; determine a second user decentralized identifier (second user DID) associated with a second user based at least in part on the relationship data; and establish a relationship between the first user and the second user.
Sporny et al. (Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0, published on 11/19/2019) discloses Relationship Credential of multiple subjects (each with a decentralized identifier) in a Verifiable Credential (section 4.4, example 7, section C4, example 42, Mother-Child relationship credential, wherein the issuer expresses the relationship between the child and the parent such that a verifier would most likely accept the credential if it is provided by the child or the parent.) Sporny does not disclose obtaining relationship data from the blockchain based at least in part on the first user DID.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in form PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEU T HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1253. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 AM -5 PM.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/HIEU T HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449