DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is in response to an application dated April 22, 2026. Claims 1-16 were elected in response to the restriction requirement. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-16 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Continuation Application
This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18317853, filed on 05/15/2023 now US Patent No. 12093933 which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17335901, filed on 06/01/2021 now U.S. Patent No. 11687919 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 9 which is illustrative of the independent claim 1, recites:
9. (Original) A computer-implemented method, executed on one or more processors, for network-based, variable authentication protocols for processing a digital transaction, the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, at a remote variable authentication protocol server, a variable authentication protocol dataset by removing from an initial authentication protocol dataset any of a first authentication protocol or a second authentication protocol that are superseded by another authentication protocol within the initial authentication protocol dataset, by:
identifying a requirement for a proof of a particular claim within the first authentication protocol or the second authentication protocol,
identifying a requirement for an attestation of the particular claim within the first authentication protocol or the second authentication protocol,
determining that the attestation supersedes the proof, and removing from the initial authentication protocol dataset the requirement for the proof of the particular claim;
communicating the variable authentication protocol dataset to another computer system;
receiving, from the other computer system, at least one authentication token, wherein the at least one authentication token comprises at least one proof and/or attestation of identifying information that is encrypted using a public key of a third-party that is requesting the at least one proof and/or attestation;
validating that the at least one authentication token conforms with the variable authentication protocol dataset; and in response to the validation of the at least one authentication token, processing the digital transaction.
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention (as recited in claims 1-16) is directed towards an abstract idea of authentication protocols on pre-defined rules. These steps describe the process a person would take to determine the applicable protocols to be applied at the point of sale transaction. It can also be considered a mental process practically with the human mind since it entails making comparisons of data albeit with the help of a computer. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g. processor; see App. specification, paras. 0018-0020 and 0024; Fig. 1-2). This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components to execute the generating/identifying/identifying/determining/communicating/validating steps.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g. network and processor) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 provide additonal details about the different steps. For example, claims 10-12 provide additional descriptive elements of the authentication process and the what the POS component does based on how the predefined rules are applied to perform the evaluation and do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-16 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liberty, USP, Pub. No. US 20230289783
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As to claim 9 (Original) Liberty discloses A computer-implemented method, executed on one or more processors, for network-based, variable authentication protocols for processing a digital transaction (Liberty, Abstract), the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, at a remote variable authentication protocol server, a variable authentication protocol dataset by removing from an initial authentication protocol dataset any of a first authentication protocol or a second authentication protocol that are superseded by another authentication protocol within the initial authentication protocol dataset (Liberty, para. 0006 – “…generates, at the remote variable authentication protocol server, a variable authentication protocol dataset. Generating the remote variable authentication protocol dataset comprises removing from the initial authentication protocol dataset any of the first authentication protocol, the second authentication protocol, or the third authentication protocol that are superseded by another authentication protocol within the initial authentication protocol dataset.”
see also paras. 0007-0008),
by :identifying a requirement for a proof of a particular claim within the first authentication protocol or the second authentication protocol(Liberty, para. 0025), identifying a requirement for an attestation of the particular claim within the first authentication protocol or the second authentication protocol (Liberty, paras. 0025-0027),
determining that the attestation supersedes the proof and removing from the initial authentication protocol dataset the requirement for the proof of the particular claim (Liberty, para. 0032 –“… the security protocol engine 240 may institute a hierarchy within the authentication protocols such that an attestation of a claim supersedes a proof of the claim. In other words, an attestation of a client's birth certificate is considered better than a digital proof of the client's birth certificate. Accordingly, the security protocol engine 240 can identify that the first authentication protocol requires a digital proof of the client's birth certificate, while the second authentication protocol requires an attestation of the client's birth certificate. In this case, the security protocol engine 240 can determine that it is not necessary for the client to provide the digital proof, because the client is required to provide an attestation of the birth certificate, which is higher in the hierarchy);
communicating the variable authentication protocol dataset to another computer system (Liberty, paras. 0023-0026);
receiving, from the other computer system, at least one authentication token, wherein the at least one authentication token comprises at least one proof and/or attestation of identifying information that is encrypted using a public key of a third-party that is requesting the at least one proof and/or attestation (Liberty, paras. 0006-0007; 0018, 0023-0024);;
validating that the at least one authentication token conforms with the variable authentication protocol dataset; and in response to the validation of the at least one authentication token, processing the digital transaction(Liberty, paras. 0006-0007; 0018, 0023-0024; see also para. 0039 –“…the authentication process comprises the token authentication engine 250 communicating a received authentication token to the security protocol server 150(a-c) that requested the particular authentication token. The security protocol server 150(a-c) then authenticates the authentication token and sends a communication to the token authentication engine 250 indicating whether the authentication token was properly authenticated.”).
As to claim 10. (Original) Liberty discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the first authentication protocol and the second authentication protocol comprise sovereign identification requirements for specific proof and attestations (Liberty, para, 0025 –“…authentication protocol may comprise sovereign identification requirements for specific proof and attestations”; see also para. 0022).
As to claim 11 (Original) Liberty discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the other computer system comprises a point-of-sale computer system(Liberty, para. 0010 –“… a system 100 for implementing and managing network-based, variable authentication protocols. The system 100 comprises a mobile computing device 110, a point-of-sale (POS) computer system 120, a variable authentication protocol server 140, and various protocol servers 150(a-c). The POS computer system 120 is in communication with the variable authentication protocol server 140 through a network 130. Additionally, the variable authentication protocol server 140 is in communication with the various protocol servers 150(a-c) through the same network 130 or through a different network.”)..
As to claim 12. (Original) Liberty discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the first authentication protocol comprises authentication requirements that are specific to a company or organization that operates a point-of-sale computer system (Liberty, para. 0027 – “…protocol associated with the identification associated with the POS computer system 120 may comprise authentication requirements that are specific to a company or organization that operates the POS computer system 120.”).
As to claim 13 (Original) Liberty discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the second authentication protocol comprises authentication requirements that are specific to international treaty obligations, national legal obligations, and local law obligations associated with jurisdictions encompassing the point-of-sale computer system (Liberty, para. 0028).
As to claim 14. (Original) Liberty discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising:
receiving, from the point-of-sale computer system, a digital request to perform a digital monetary transaction(Liberty, paras. 0023, 0025); and receiving, from the point-of-sale computer system, information relating to the digital monetary transaction, an identification associated with the point-of-sale computer system, and location information relating to the point-of-sale computer system(Liberty, paras. 0023, 0025);
As to claim 15 (Original) Liberty discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the at least one authentication token comprises claims, proof, and attestations(Liberty, para. 0025);
As to claim 16 (Original) Liberty discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising: communicating the at least one authentication token to a server indicated by the second authentication protocol (Liberty, paras. 0038-0039; see also para. 0007).
As to claims 1-8 contain limitations similar to claims 9-16 and are rejected in like manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights