DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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 action is in reply to the remarks and/or arguments for Application 18/742,251 filed on 31 December 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) as being indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments to the claims have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
1. Applicant argues that the amended claims recite a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “communications hardware”, “rental entity device”, “rental candidate device”, “authentication circuitry”, “rental ID management circuitry”, represent the use of computer-related devices as an intermediary and/or tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g., particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04 (d) I)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the abstract idea of evaluating a rental candidate associated with a rental instance – i.e., economic and/or commercial interaction, comprising the steps of receiving, authenticating, calculating, and evaluating data/information associated with an economic endeavor and rendering a decision thereof. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
2. Applicant further argues that the amended claims provide an improvement to a technology or technical field.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At most it is noted that the invention is directed to the improvement of an abstract idea using technology rather than to the improvement to technology and/or the functioning of the computer itself. The "focus" of the claim as a whole is not "on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Rather, the claim merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of evaluating and/or authenticating an entity which does not render the claim any less abstract. See id.; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (holding that attempting to limit the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not make a claim patent-eligible) (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[M]erely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claim[] any less abstract."); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716 ("As we have held, the use of the Internet is not sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under§ 101.").
In this instance, the claims recite limitations implemented on computer-related devices and/or components that are merely used to apply the abstract concept that neither improves another technology or technical field, nor the functioning of the computer devices or components itself.
The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner routinely and conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
3. Applicant further argues that the amended claims implement the abstract idea with a particular machine.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification describes the computer-related devices recited as follows:
[0034] The processor 202 (and/or co-processor or any other processor assisting or otherwise associated with the processor) may be in communication with the memory 204 via a bus for passing information amongst components of the apparatus. The processor 202 may be embodied in a number of different ways and may, for example, include one or more processing devices configured to perform independently. Furthermore, the processor may include one or more processors configured in tandem via a bus to enable independent execution of software instructions, pipelining, and/or multi-threading. The use of the term "processor" may be understood to include a single core processor, a multi-core processor, multiple processors of the apparatus 200, remote or "cloud" processors, or any combination thereof.
[0036] Memory 204 is non-transitory and may include, for example, one or more volatile
and/or non-volatile memories. In other words, for example, the memory 204 may be an
electronic storage device (e.g., a computer readable storage medium).
[0037] The communications hardware 206 may be any means such as a device or circuitry embodied in either hardware or a combination of hardware and software that is configured to receive and/or transmit data from/to a network and/or any other device, circuitry, or module in communication with the apparatus 200.
[0038] The communications hardware 206 may further be configured to provide output to a rental entity and/or a rental candidate and, in some embodiments, to receive an indication of rental candidate input. In this regard, the communications hardware 206 may comprise an interface, such as a display, and may further comprise the components that govern use of the interface, such as a web browser, mobile application, dedicated rental candidate device, or the like.
[0058] Although components 202-212 are described in part using functional language, it will be understood that the particular implementations necessarily include the use of particular hardware. It should also be understood that certain of these components 202-212 may include similar or common hardware. For example, the rental ID management circuitry 208, the authentication circuitry 210, and/or the candidate evaluation engine 212 may each at times leverage use of the processor 202, memory 204, and/or communications hardware 206, such that duplicate hardware is not required to facilitate operation of these physical elements of the apparatus 200.
There are no indications in the Specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). There is no indication in the Specification that the claim affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. As such, the invention does not affect an improvement in the functioning of the computer-related devices recited or other technology, does not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Moreover, simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer "specialized," nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is noted that a “general purpose computer is flexible – it can do anything it is programmed to do.” Programming a general purpose computer to perform a particular function does not constitute an improvement to the computer itself or effect an improvement to a technical field or technology. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
4. Applicant further argues that the amended claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant application, there is no actual improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed. There are no actual improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and there are no meaningful limitations beyond generally applying the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims using rules and/or instructions. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
5. Applicant further argues that the amended claims amount to "significantly more" than any recited judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the abstract idea of evaluating a rental candidate associated with a rental instance – i.e., economic and/or commercial interaction, comprising the steps of receiving, authenticating, calculating, and evaluating data/information associated with an economic endeavor and rendering a decision thereof, using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoen et al., US 2015/0032487 A1 (“Shoen”), in view of Agrawal et al., US 2019/0312879 A1 (“Agarwal”), in view of Yair et al., US 2024/0046386 A1 (“Yair”).
The Office has given consideration to the remarks and amendments made to the pending set of claims, but are considered moot in light of the grounds of rejection, provided below, for the current listing of claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, representative method claim 1 is directed towards
evaluating a rental candidate for a rental event. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the abstract idea of evaluating a rental candidate associated with a rental instance – i.e., economic and/or commercial interaction, comprising the steps of receiving, authenticating, calculating, and evaluating data/information associated with an economic endeavor and rendering a decision thereof, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial interactions; managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions). Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
“receiving, by communications hardware and from a rental entity device associated with a rental entity, a rental initiation request comprising (a) a rental candidate item and (b) an indication ;
receiving, by the communications hardware and from a rental candidate device associated with the rental candidate, a mobile driver's license (mDL) associated with the rental candidate;
authenticating, by authentication circuitry, the rental candidate based on the mDL; and
in response to authenticating the rental candidate:
determining, by rental ID management circuitry and based on the mDL, a universal rental identifier (ID) associated with the rental candidate;
determining, by the rental ID management circuitry, rental candidate information based on the universal rental ID;
determining, based on the rental entity, a set of rental decision rules determining, by a candidate evaluation engine and using a risk determination model, a risk level indicative of an inferred risk associated with renting the rental candidate item to the rental candidate, wherein the risk level is determined based on the rental candidate item, the set of rental decision rules, and the rental candidate information; and
providing, by the communications hardware and to the rental entity device, a rental candidate evaluation of the rental candidate, wherein the rental candidate evaluation comprises a suitability indication of renting the rental candidate item to the rental candidate.”
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “communications hardware”, “rental entity device”, “rental candidate device”, “authentication circuitry”, “rental ID management circuitry”, represent the use of computer-related devices as an intermediary and/or tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g., particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04 (d) I)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the abstract idea of evaluating a rental candidate associated with a rental instance – i.e., economic and/or commercial interaction, comprising the steps of receiving, authenticating, calculating, and evaluating data/information associated with an economic endeavor and rendering a decision thereof.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of utilizing rules and/or instructions for performing the abstract idea of evaluating a rental candidate associated with a rental instance – i.e., economic and/or commercial interaction, comprising the steps of receiving, authenticating, calculating, and evaluating data/information associated with an economic endeavor and rendering a decision thereof, using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 8 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of an apparatus (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 8 accordingly.
Independent claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 15 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a computer program product (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 15 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
The step(s) recited are a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity – – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions), because it merely describes intermediate steps and/or rules/instructions of the process.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claim is not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoen et al., US 2015/0032487 A1 (“Shoen”), in view of Hanson et al., US 2024/0195629 A1 (“Hanson”), in view of Yair et al., US 2024/0046386 A1 (“Yair”).
Re Claim 1: (Currently Amended) Shoen discloses a method for evaluating a rental candidate for a rental event, the method comprising:
receiving, by communications hardware and from a rental entity device associated with a rental entity, a rental initiation request comprising (a) a rental candidate item and (b) an indication of the rental candidate; ([0006] “… there is provided a method and system for real-time qualification of rental customers. The method and system allows a rental company to quickly qualify a rental customer making an online reservation of a rental vehicle, such as a car share rental …”; [0030] “… a rental management computer system is used to manage and provide rental services, such as car sharing rentals, to customers. A rental customer can use a mobile computer device, such as a smart phone, to communicate with the rental management computer system to provide information that can be used to quickly qualify the customer for a rental transaction …”)
Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
receiving, by the communications hardware and from a rental candidate device associated with the rental candidate, a mobile driver's license (mDL) associated with the rental candidate;
authenticating, by authentication circuitry, the rental candidate based on the mDL;
in response to authenticating the rental candidate:
determining, by rental ID management circuitry and based on the mDL, a universal rental identifier (ID) associated with the rental candidate;
determining, by the rental ID management circuitry, rental candidate information based on the universal rental ID;
Hanson makes these teachings in a related endeavor ([0018] “… digital credentials provided by
issuing authorities for purposes of verification of a user's identity are increasingly being used by end users and relying parties. Relying parties may verify a digital credential to verify a human user's identity in contexts where physical identification documents have previously been utilized. In relation to presentation of digital credentials for identity verification, a number of standards have been proposed or created. In particular, ISO 18013-5 for mobile driving license (mDL) and W3C Verifiable Credentials (VC) have been proposed.”; [0022] “… issuing authority 102 may be any appropriate entity that may issue a digital credential to an end user 104, who may be a human user uniquely associated with the digital credential. In this regard, the digital credential may be used by the end user 104 for purposes of verifying the identity of the end user 104. As used herein, a digital credential may refer to any cryptographically secure digital data. Digital credentials that relate to an identity of a user may be referred to simply as digital identities. Such examples of digital identities may include the issuance of a mDL from a government agency …”; [0074] “… outcomes of verification operations may be stored in the audit log 722 as unique tokens. Each token may provide a unique, verifiable record of a verification operation, but may provide anonymization or other disassociation with a given digital credential used in the verification operation. As an example, for each verification operation, a token may be generated using demographic information (e.g., some information obtained from the digital credential used in the verification operation such as name, age, date of birth, address, or other information particular to the digital credential) and biometric information used in the verification
operation ( e.g., including stored biometric information associated with the digital credential or provided biometric information received from the end user 704). In any regard, generation of the token may create a unique, verifiable, non-reversible token regarding the verification operation.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hanson with the invention of Shoen as disclosed above, for the motivation of providing secure and expedient means of verifying a user/customer.
Regarding the limitation features comprising:
determining, based on the rental entity, a set of rental decision rules determining, by a candidate evaluation engine and using a risk determination model, a risk level indicative of an inferred risk associated with renting the rental candidate item to the rental candidate, wherein the risk level is determined based on the rental candidate item, the set of rental decision rules, and the rental candidate information;
providing, by the communications hardware and to the rental entity device, a rental candidate evaluation of the rental candidate, wherein the rental candidate evaluation comprises a suitability indication of renting the rental candidate item to the rental candidate.
Yair makes these teachings in a related endeavor ([0111] “… the renter score can be based on a set of rules”; [0151] “In some embodiments, processing logic determines an initial renter score per user and may add potential additional data points. The renter score may be a multidimensional score that is based on both the financial qualification of the user and the behavioral qualification of the user”; [0155] “renter score may include a financial score component. The financial score component may be a quantitative measure”; [0160] “renter score may include a behavioral component. The behavioral component may illustrate how responsible the user (e.g., prospective tenant) is in their financial handling and may be used to produce a renter score that is per user”; [0182] “status (e.g., qualified, not qualified, risk, etc.)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yair with the invention of Shoen as disclosed above, for the motivation of facilitating mitigating risk associated with a customer.
Re Claim 2: (Currently Amended) Shoen in view of Hanson in view of Yair discloses the method of claim 1. Shoen further discloses:
determining, by the authentication circuitry, that the rental candidate device is associated with the rental candidate based on the indication
Re Claim 3: (Original) Shoen in view of Hanson in view of Yair discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
providing, by the communications hardware, a mDL request to the rental candidate device, wherein the mDL is received in response to the mDL request and the mDL is encrypted.
Hanson makes these teachings in a related endeavor ([0018] “… digital credentials provided by
issuing authorities for purposes of verification of a user's identity are increasingly being used by end users and relying parties. Relying parties may verify a digital credential to verify a human user's identity in contexts where physical identification documents have previously been utilized. In relation to presentation of digital credentials for identity verification, a number of standards have been proposed or created. In particular, ISO 18013-5 for mobile driving license (mDL) and W3C Verifiable Credentials (VC) have been proposed.”; [0022] “… issuing authority 102 may be any appropriate entity that may issue a digital credential to an end user 104, who may be a human user uniquely associated with the digital credential. In this regard, the digital credential may be used by the end user 104 for purposes of verifying the identity of the end user 104. As used herein, a digital credential may refer to any cryptographically secure digital data. Digital credentials that relate to an identity of a user may be referred to simply as digital identities. Such examples of digital identities may include the issuance of a mDL from a government agency …”; [0074] “… outcomes of verification operations may be stored in the audit log 722 as unique tokens. Each token may provide a unique, verifiable record of a verification operation, but may provide anonymization or other disassociation with a given digital credential used in the verification operation. As an example, for each verification operation, a token may be generated using demographic information (e.g., some information obtained from the digital credential used in the verification operation such as name, age, date of birth, address, or other information particular to the digital credential) and biometric information used in the verification
operation ( e.g., including stored biometric information associated with the digital credential or provided biometric information received from the end user 704). In any regard, generation of the token may create a unique, verifiable, non-reversible token regarding the verification operation.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hanson with the invention of Shoen as disclosed above, for the motivation of providing secure and expedient means of verifying a user/customer.
Re Claim 4: (Original) Shoen in view of Hanson in view of Yair discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
wherein authenticating the rental candidate further comprises:
providing, by the communications hardware, an mDL authentication request to an issuing authority (IA) system associated with an IA that provisioned the mDL to the rental candidate, wherein the mDL authentication request comprises the mDL;
receiving, by the communications hardware, a mDL validity response from the IA system, wherein the mDL validity response is indicative of whether the mDL was verified; and
authenticating, by the authentication circuitry, the rental candidate based on the mDL validity response.
Hanson makes these teachings in a related endeavor ([0018] “… digital credentials provided by
issuing authorities for purposes of verification of a user's identity are increasingly being used by end users and relying parties. Relying parties may verify a digital credential to verify a human user's identity in contexts where physical identification documents have previously been utilized. In relation to presentation of digital credentials for identity verification, a number of standards have been proposed or created. In particular, ISO 18013-5 for mobile driving license (mDL) and W3C Verifiable Credentials (VC) have been proposed.”; [0022] “… issuing authority 102 may be any appropriate entity that may issue a digital credential to an end user 104, who may be a human user uniquely associated with the digital credential. In this regard, the digital credential may be used by the end user 104 for purposes of verifying the identity of the end user 104. As used herein, a digital credential may refer to any cryptographically secure digital data. Digital credentials that relate to an identity of a user may be referred to simply as digital identities. Such examples of digital identities may include the issuance of a mDL from a government agency …”; [0074] “… outcomes of verification operations may be stored in the audit log 722 as unique tokens. Each token may provide a unique, verifiable record of a verification operation, but may provide anonymization or other disassociation with a given digital credential used in the verification operation. As an example, for each verification operation, a token may be generated using demographic information (e.g., some information obtained from the digital credential used in the verification operation such as name, age, date of birth, address, or other information particular to the digital credential) and biometric information used in the verification
operation ( e.g., including stored biometric information associated with the digital credential or provided biometric information received from the end user 704). In any regard, generation of the token may create a unique, verifiable, non-reversible token regarding the verification operation.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hanson with the invention of Shoen as disclosed above, for the motivation of providing secure and expedient means of verifying a user/customer.
Re Claim 5: (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
wherein determining the risk level further comprises:
selecting, by the candidate evaluation engine, a risk assessment type based on the rental candidate item, wherein the risk assessment type is associated with at least one rental requirement;
generating, by the candidate evaluation engine and using the risk determination model, a risk score, wherein the risk score is generated based on a comparison between the at least one rental requirement and the rental candidate information;
determining, by the candidate evaluation engine and using the risk determination model, the risk level based on the risk score; and
generating, by the candidate evaluation engine and using the risk determination model,-a
Yair makes these teachings in a related endeavor ([0111] “… the renter score can be based on a set of rules”; [0151] “In some embodiments, processing logic determines an initial renter score per user and may add potential additional data points. The renter score may be a multidimensional score that is based on both the financial qualification of the user and the behavioral qualification of the user”; [0155] “renter score may include a financial score component. The financial score component may be a quantitative measure”; [0160] “renter score may include a behavioral component. The behavioral component may illustrate how responsible the user (e.g., prospective tenant) is in their financial handling and may be used to produce a renter score that is per user”; [0182] “status (e.g., qualified, not qualified, risk, etc.)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yair with the invention of Shoen as disclosed above, for the motivation of facilitating mitigating risk associated with a customer.
Re Claim 6: (Currently Amended) Shoen in view of Hanson in view of Yair discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
providing, by the communications hardware, a rental candidate information request to a trusted third-party device, wherein the rental candidate information request comprises the universal rental ID; and
receiving, by the communications hardware, a rental candidate information response comprising third-party rental candidate information, wherein the third-party rental candidate information is included in the rental candidate information response.
Hanson makes these teachings in a related endeavor ([0018] “… digital credentials provided by
issuing authorities for purposes of verification of a user's identity are increasingly being used by end users and relying parties. Relying parties may verify a digital credential to verify a human user's identity in contexts where physical identification documents have previously been utilized. In relation to presentation of digital credentials for identity verification, a number of standards have been proposed or created. In particular, ISO 18013-5 for mobile driving license (mDL) and W3C Verifiable Credentials (VC) have been proposed.”; [0022] “… issuing authority 102 may be any appropriate entity that may issue a digital credential to an end user 104, who may be a human user uniquely associated with the digital credential. In this regard, the digital credential may be used by the end user 104 for purposes of verifying the identity of the end user 104. As used herein, a digital credential may refer to any cryptographically secure digital data. Digital credentials that relate to an identity of a user may be referred to simply as digital identities. Such examples of digital identities may include the issuance of a mDL from a government agency …”; [0074] “… outcomes of verification operations may be stored in the audit log 722 as unique tokens. Each token may provide a unique, verifiable record of a verification operation, but may provide anonymization or other disassociation with a given digital credential used in the verification operation. As an example, for each verification operation, a token may be generated using demographic information (e.g., some information obtained from the digital credential used in the verification operation such as name, age, date of birth, address, or other information particular to the digital credential) and biometric information used in the verification
operation ( e.g., including stored biometric information associated with the digital credential or provided biometric information received from the end user 704). In any regard, generation of the token may create a unique, verifiable, non-reversible token regarding the verification operation.”; [0021] “The present disclosure may enable government agencies and private enterprises to confidently succeed in in-person and on-line environments across multi-wallet universes. Specifically,
the platform described herein facilitates multi-channel identification acceptance and verification by orchestrating secure access between the wallet application of the end user's choice and a relying party's digital infrastructure.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hanson with the invention of Shoen as disclosed above, for the motivation of providing secure and expedient means of verifying a user/customer.
Re Claim 7: (Currently Amended) Shoen in view of Hanson in view of Yair discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation(s) comprising:
in an instance in which no universal rental ID is determined for the rental candidate, generating, by the rental ID management circuitry, the universal rental ID based on the rental candidate information; and
providing, by the communications hardware, the universal rental ID to a third-party device and to the rental candidate device.
Hanson makes these teachings in a related endeavor ([0018] “… digital credentials provided by
issuing authorities for purposes of verification of a user's identity are increasingly being used by end users and relying parties. Relying parties may verify a digital credential to verify a human user's identity in contexts where physical identification documents have previously been utilized. In relation to presentation of digital credentials for identity verification, a number of standards have been proposed or created. In particular, ISO 18013-5 for mobile driving license (mDL) and W3C Verifiable Credentials (VC) have been proposed.”; [0022] “… issuing authority 102 may be any appropriate entity that may issue a digital credential to an end user 104, who may be a human user uniquely associated with the digital credential. In this regard, the digital credential may be used by the end user 104 for purposes of verifying the identity of the end user 104. As used herein, a digital credential may refer to any cryptographically secure digital data. Digital credentials that relate to an identity of a user may be referred to simply as digital identities. Such examples of digital identities may include the issuance of a mDL from a government agency …”; [0074] “… outcomes of verification operations may be stored in the audit log 722 as unique tokens. Each token may provide a unique, verifiable record of a verification operation, but may provide anonymization or other disassociation with a given digital credential used in the verification operation. As an example, for each verification operation, a token may be generated using demographic information (e.g., some information obtained from the digital credential used in the verification operation such as name, age, date of birth, address, or other information particular to the digital credential) and biometric information used in the verification
operation ( e.g., including stored biometric information associated with the digital credential or provided biometric information received from the end user 704). In any regard, generation of the token may create a unique, verifiable, non-reversible token regarding the verification operation.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hanson with the invention of Shoen as disclosed above, for the motivation of providing secure and expedient means of verifying a user/customer.
Re Claim 8: (Currently Amended) Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Re Claim 9: (Currently Amended) Claim 9, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 10: (Original) Claim 10, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 11: (Original) Claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 12: (Currently Amended) Claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 13: (Currently Amended) Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 14: (Original) Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Re Claim 15: (Currently Amended) Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 16: (Currently Amended) Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 17: (Currently Amended) Claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 18: (Currently Amended) Claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 19: (Currently Amended) Claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 20: (Currently Amended) Claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown et al. (US 2007/0027708 A1) discloses systems and methods to facilitate rental transactions. Systems and methods for facilitating rental of a good comprising storing a good identifier associated with the good in a product database, displaying product information associated with the good based on a geographical location of the good, receiving a rental request from the renter, and sending a contact information associated with the renter to a listing party at least in part based on the rental request. The rental request may be anonymous. An inquiry may be received from the renter and anonymized and sent to the listing party. An anonymous negotiation between a listing party and the renter may be conducted and the rental price and/or the rental term may be determined based on the anonymous negotiation.
Cannon (US 2023/0186705 A1) discloses a rental guest verification system and method. A rental guest verification system and method include a community access platform having at least one unit access device, a plurality of community access devices, a local server and a platform provider system. The platform provider system is in communication with the local server and creates a property owner portal for use by a property owner. A guest seeking to rent a unit from the property owner provides
information through a guest portal and undergoes an identity and background check. A digital key is linked to the guest portal of the guest upon a successful background check. Upon arriving at the rental property, the guest portal captures a real time image of the guest and compares the same to the images used in the background check. If the comparison is a match, the guest key is activated to unlock the unit access device and community access devices.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the 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 Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. 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.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights