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 .
1. This is in response to the communications filed on 25 November 2024.
2. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 1-15 have been rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The examiner has considered the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 25 November 2024.
Specification
5. The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al US 2019/0349372 A1 (hereinafter Smith) in view of Yang US 2021/0049608 A1 and Angara et al U.S. Patent No. 11,496,446 B1 (hereinafter Angara).
As to claim 1, Smith discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, personally identifiable information (PII) associated with the prospective member (i.e. requested PII from user) [0082];
determining, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, a purported identity of the prospective member based at least in part on the PII (i.e. check the data authenticity, ownership and validity of the PII) [0082];
validating, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the purported identity of the prospective member based at least in part on the PII (i.e. check the data authenticity, ownership and validity of the PII) [0082];
contingent upon successfully validating the purported identity, determining, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, an anonymized form of the PII (i.e. create a hash of the plain text PII) [0082].
Smith does not teach determining, by one or more processors of a blockchain node, that the blockchain node was selected to perform a registration for a prospective member, according to a consensus protocol of a blockchain network that the blockchain node is a participant of. Smith does not teach discarding, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form. Smith does not teach storing, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the anonymized form in a data store.
Yang teaches determining, by one or more processors of a blockchain node, that the blockchain node was selected (i.e. member node is a designated member node) [0040] to perform a registration for a prospective member (i.e. account is registered) [0040], according to a consensus protocol of a blockchain network that the blockchain node is a participant of (i.e. based on designated consensus trigger condition) [0060].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Smith so that it would have been determined, by one or more processors of a blockchain node, that the blockchain node was selected to perform a registration for a prospective member, according to a consensus protocol of a blockchain network that the blockchain node was a participant of.
It 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 to have modified Smith by the teaching of Yang because it ensures that the platform is not tampered with [0004].
The Smith-Yang combination does not teach discarding, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form. The Smith-Yang combination does not teach storing, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the anonymized form in a data store.
Angara teaches discarding, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form (i.e. automatic PII deletion after PII hash is created) [column 4 line 51 to column 5 line 7]. Angara teaches storing, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the anonymized form in a data store (i.e. storing the original hash in a blockchain that stores hashes corresponding to the PII) [column 4 line 51 to column 5 line 7].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang combination so that the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form would have been discarded by the one or more processors of the blockchain node. The anonymized form in a data store would have been stored by the one or more processors of the blockchain node.
It 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang combination by the teaching of Angara because it helps to protect PII submitted through a browser [abstract].
As to claim 3, Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
a one-way hash function is used to determine the anonymized form of the PII (i.e. creating a hash of the plain text PII) [0082].
As to claim 4, Smith teaches method of claim 1, wherein the PII comprises at least one of:
driver's license information;
passport information; and
social security information (PII includes SSN) [0072].
As to claim 6, Smith discloses a blockchain node, comprising:
one or more processors [0162]; and
memory storing executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors [0162], cause the blockchain node to at least:
obtain personally identifiable information (PII) associated with the prospective member (i.e. requested PII from user) [0082];
determine a purported identity of the prospective member based at least in part on the PII (i.e. check the data authenticity, ownership and validity of the PII) [0082];
validate the purported identity of the prospective member based at least in part on the PII (i.e. check the data authenticity, ownership and validity of the PII) [0082];
contingent upon successfully validating the purported identity, determine an anonymized form of the PII (i.e. create a hash of the plain text PII) [0082].
Smith does not teach determining, by one or more processors of a blockchain node, that the blockchain node was selected to perform a registration for a prospective member, according to a consensus protocol of a blockchain network that the blockchain node is a participant of. Smith does not teach discarding, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form. Smith does not teach storing, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the anonymized form in a data store.
Yang teaches determining, by one or more processors of a blockchain node, that the blockchain node was selected (i.e. member node is a designated member node) [0040] to perform a registration for a prospective member (i.e. account is registered) [0040], according to a consensus protocol of a blockchain network that the blockchain node is a participant of (i.e. based on designated consensus trigger condition) [0060].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Smith so that it would have been determined, by one or more processors of a blockchain node, that the blockchain node was selected to perform a registration for a prospective member, according to a consensus protocol of a blockchain network that the blockchain node was a participant of.
It 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 to have modified Smith by the teaching of Yang because it ensures that the platform is not tampered with [0004].
The Smith-Yang combination does not teach discarding, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form. The Smith-Yang combination does not teach storing, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the anonymized form in a data store.
Angara teaches discarding, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form (i.e. automatic PII deletion after PII hash is created) [column 4 line 51 to column 5 line 7]. Angara teaches storing, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the anonymized form in a data store (i.e. storing the original hash in a blockchain that stores hashes corresponding to the PII) [column 4 line 51 to column 5 line 7].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang combination so that the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form would have been discarded by the one or more processors of the blockchain node. The anonymized form in a data store would have been stored by the one or more processors of the blockchain node.
It 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang combination by the teaching of Angara because it helps to protect PII submitted through a browser [abstract].
As to claim 8, Smith teaches the blockchain node of claim 6, wherein:
a one-way hash function is used to determine the anonymized form of the PII (i.e. creating a hash of the plain text PII) [0082].
As to claim 9, Smith teaches blockchain node of claim 6, wherein the PI comprises at least one of:
driver's license information;
passport information; and
social security information (PII includes SSN) [0072].
As to claim 11, Smith discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the blockchain node to:
obtain personally identifiable information (PII) associated with the prospective member (i.e. requested PII from user) [0082];
determine a purported identity of the prospective member based at least in part on the PII (i.e. check the data authenticity, ownership and validity of the PII) [0082];
validate the purported identity of the prospective member based at least in part on the PIT (i.e. check the data authenticity, ownership and validity of the PII) [0082];
contingent upon successfully validating the purported identity, determine an anonymized form of the PII (i.e. create a hash of the plain text PII) [0082].
Smith does not teach determining, by one or more processors of a blockchain node, that the blockchain node was selected to perform a registration for a prospective member, according to a consensus protocol of a blockchain network that the blockchain node is a participant of. Smith does not teach discarding, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form. Smith does not teach storing, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the anonymized form in a data store.
Yang teaches determining, by one or more processors of a blockchain node, that the blockchain node was selected (i.e. member node is a designated member node) [0040] to perform a registration for a prospective member (i.e. account is registered) [0040], according to a consensus protocol of a blockchain network that the blockchain node is a participant of (i.e. based on designated consensus trigger condition) [0060].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Smith so that it would have been determined, by one or more processors of a blockchain node, that the blockchain node was selected to perform a registration for a prospective member, according to a consensus protocol of a blockchain network that the blockchain node was a participant of.
It 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 to have modified Smith by the teaching of Yang because it ensures that the platform is not tampered with [0004].
The Smith-Yang combination does not teach discarding, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form. The Smith-Yang combination does not teach storing, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the anonymized form in a data store.
Angara teaches discarding, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form (i.e. automatic PII deletion after PII hash is created) [column 4 line 51 to column 5 line 7]. Angara teaches storing, by the one or more processors of the blockchain node, the anonymized form in a data store (i.e. storing the original hash in a blockchain that stores hashes corresponding to the PII) [column 4 line 51 to column 5 line 7].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang combination so that the PII upon the determining of the anonymized form would have been discarded by the one or more processors of the blockchain node. The anonymized form in a data store would have been stored by the one or more processors of the blockchain node.
It 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang combination by the teaching of Angara because it helps to protect PII submitted through a browser [abstract].
As to claim 13, Smith teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein:
a one-way hash function is used to determine the anonymized form of the PII (i.e. creating a hash of the plain text PII) [0082].
As to claim 14, Smith teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the PII comprises at least one of:
driver's license information;
passport information; and
social security information(PII includes SSN) [0072].
7. Claim(s) 2, 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al US 2019/0349372 A1 (hereinafter Smith), Yang US 2021/0049608 A1 and Angara et al U.S. Patent No. 11,496,446 B1 (hereinafter Angara) as applied to claims 1, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Ravi et al U.S. Patent No. 11,250,429 B1 (hereinafter Ravi).
As to claim 2, the Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein validating the purported identity of the prospective member comprises a video call or video interview.
Ravi teaches that validating the purported identity of the prospective member comprises a video call or video interview (i.e. video call can be used to verify the identity of the user) [column 12, lines 37-57].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination so that validating the purported identity of the prospective member would have comprised a video call or video interview.
It 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination by the teaching of Ravi because it helps authenticate a user who does not have enough PII [column 1, lines 34-41].
As to claim 7, the Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach the blockchain node of claim 6, wherein validating the purported identity of the prospective member comprises a video call or video interview.
Ravi teaches that validating the purported identity of the prospective member comprises a video call or video interview (i.e. video call can be used to verify the identity of the user) [column 12, lines 37-57].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination so that validating the purported identity of the prospective member would have comprised a video call or video interview.
It 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination by the teaching of Ravi because it helps authenticate a user who does not have enough PII [column 1, lines 34-41].
As to claim 12, the Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein validating the purported identity of the prospective member comprises a video call or video interview.
Ravi teaches that validating the purported identity of the prospective member comprises a video call or video interview (i.e. video call can be used to verify the identity of the user) [column 12, lines 37-57].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination so that validating the purported identity of the prospective member would have comprised a video call or video interview.
It 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination by the teaching of Ravi because it helps authenticate a user who does not have enough PII [column 1, lines 34-41].
8. Claim(s) 5, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al US 2019/0349372 A1 (hereinafter Smith), Yang US 2021/0049608 A1 and Angara et al U.S. Patent No. 11,496,446 B1 (hereinafter Angara) as applied to claims 1, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Shila et al US 2020/0349245 A1 (hereinafter Shila).
As to claim 5, the Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach obtaining a request to authenticate an identity, wherein the request comprises a PII hash. The Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach retrieving the anonymized form from the data store. The Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach contingent upon the PII hash and the anonymized form having matching values, verifying the identity.
Shila teaches obtaining a request to authenticate an identity (i.e. authentication request) [0134], wherein the request comprises a PII hash (i.e. sending the hashed biometric user signature) [0047]. Shila teaches retrieving the anonymized form from the data store (i.e. stored locally) [0052]. Shila teaches contingent upon the PII hash and the anonymized form having matching values, verifying the identity (i.e. based on the similarity between the hashed biometric user signature and the anonymized biometric user signature) [0052].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination so that a request would have been obtained to authenticate an identity, wherein the request would have comprised a PII hash. The anonymized form would have been retrieved from the data store. Contingent upon the PII hash and the anonymized form having matching values, verifying the identity.
It 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination by the teaching of Shila because it improves the authentication of a person engaging in an organization’s services would greatly streamline and improve the strength of digital activity among people in the world [0005].
As to claim 10, the Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach obtain a request to authenticate an identity, wherein the request comprises a PII hash. The Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach retrieve the anonymized form from the data store. The Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach contingent upon the PII hash and the anonymized form having matching values, verify the identity.
Shila teaches obtaining a request to authenticate an identity (i.e. authentication request) [0134], wherein the request comprises a PII hash (i.e. sending the hashed biometric user signature) [0047]. Shila teaches retrieving the anonymized form from the data store (i.e. stored locally) [0052]. Shila teaches contingent upon the PII hash and the anonymized form having matching values, verifying the identity (i.e. based on the similarity between the hashed biometric user signature and the anonymized biometric user signature) [0052].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination so that a request would have been obtained to authenticate an identity, wherein the request would have comprised a PII hash. The anonymized form would have been retrieved from the data store. Contingent upon the PII hash and the anonymized form having matching values, verifying the identity.
It 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination by the teaching of Shila because it improves the authentication of a person engaging in an organization’s services would greatly streamline and improve the strength of digital activity among people in the world [0005].
As to claim 15, the Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach obtain a request to authenticate an identity, wherein the request comprises a PI hash. The Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach retrieve the anonymized form from the data store. The Smith-Yang-Angara combination does not teach contingent upon the PII hash and the anonymized form having matching values, verify the identity.
Shila teaches obtaining a request to authenticate an identity (i.e. authentication request) [0134], wherein the request comprises a PII hash (i.e. sending the hashed biometric user signature) [0047]. Shila teaches retrieving the anonymized form from the data store (i.e. stored locally) [0052]. Shila teaches contingent upon the PII hash and the anonymized form having matching values, verifying the identity (i.e. based on the similarity between the hashed biometric user signature and the anonymized biometric user signature) [0052].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination so that a request would have been obtained to authenticate an identity, wherein the request would have comprised a PII hash. The anonymized form would have been retrieved from the data store. Contingent upon the PII hash and the anonymized form having matching values, verifying the identity.
It 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 to have modified the Smith-Yang-Angara combination by the teaching of Shila because it improves the authentication of a person engaging in an organization’s services would greatly streamline and improve the strength of digital activity among people in the world [0005].
Relevant Prior Art
9. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner:
A. Karame et al US 2020/0296111 A1 directed to blockchains and blockchain networks and, in particular, to a role-based consensus protocol in a blockchain network [0001].
B. Wentz et al US 2019/0312734 A1 directed to authenticating a requesting device using verified evaluators that includes an authenticating device [abstract].
C. Papa et al US 2016/0127289 A1 directed to the field of Internet advertising, and more particularly to techniques for operating an information-sharing cooperative that shares information between co-op participants without handling personally identifiable information [0003].
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARAVIND K MOORTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 4:30-3:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/ARAVIND K MOORTHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407