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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claims 8-13 were not rejected under 101 because the applicant specifications ¶3 recites “In computer program product embodiments of the invention, the computer program product comprises at least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable instructions for carrying out the invention.”
DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 05/19/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8 and 14 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The arguments are partially persuasive. Badr discloses obtaining user platform information which is not different from employment information. However, Badr does not explicitly disclose obtaining user employment information from external systems of historical employers, however new prior art was found that discloses the missing elements and remedies any deficiencies of the primary reference as mapped in the office action below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badr (US 20240048547 A1) hereinafter referred to as Badr in view of Lin (US 20250086556 A1) hereinafter referred to as Lin.
With respect to claim 1, Badr discloses: A system for generating and managing distributed register based entity networks, the system comprising: a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; a communication device; and a processing device operatively coupled to the memory device and the communication device, wherein the processing device is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to: (Badr Fig. 1A illustrates the system while Fig. 1B illustrates distributed register of blockchains).
extract user information associated with one or more users of an entity from one or more entity data repositories and one or more external systems; (Badr ¶185 teaches extracting user data and storing it on a blockchain when reciting “Fig. 5 depicts a block diagram of an example user dataset 500 according to example embodiments of the present disclosure. The user data and/or training data for the personalization model may be obtained from a plurality of third-party computing systems (e.g., a plurality of web platforms) over a period of time (e.g., years, months, days, hours, minutes, etc.). For example, a first user data 510 associated with a first user and second user data 522 associated with a second user can be stored on a blockchain 508. The first user data 510 and/or the second user data 522 can be generated based on user interactions with a plurality of web platforms, which can include a first web platform 502, a second web platform 504, and/or an nth web platform 506. The user may be able to choose when and to what extent data is obtained from each particular web platform. The permissions may be stored on the blockchain 508.”).
wherein the one or more users are employees of the entity, wherein the user information comprises employment related information, (the user(s) interaction with a platform is applicable to any platform including interpretation as employer platform and the information comprises according to Badr Fig. 5 “previous interactions” interpreted as employee related information).
sort the user information to split the user information into one or more levels of data based on a nature of the user information; (Badr Fig. 5 illustrates user data sorted into different levels 512, 514, 516 … etc.).
assign each of the one or more levels of data to one or more access levels for accessing the user information; (Badr ¶185 “The user may be able to choose when and to what extent data is obtained from each particular web platform. The permissions may be stored on the blockchain 508.”)
generate a validated record comprising the one or more levels of data associated with the one or more access levels for each of the one or more users based on the user information; (Badr ¶185 teaches validated user record is generated comprising the different levels associated with the user, illustrated in Badr Fig. 5, and also “The user may be able to choose when and to what extent data is obtained from each particular web platform. The permissions [access levels] may be stored on the blockchain 508.”).
store the validated record comprising the one or more levels of data on a distributed register; (as explained in Badr ¶185 and illustrated in Fig. 5 the data is stored on a blockchain [distributed register]).
receive a query associated with the validated record from a user device; (Badr ¶188 “a computing system can receive an access request from a third-party computing system [a user device]. In some implementations, the access request can be descriptive of a request to access user data [validated record] for a particular user. The user data can be stored on a blockchain”)
and extract at least a part of the validated record associated with the query from the distributed register and display at least the part of the validated record on the user device. (While Badr ¶188 teaches displaying the extracted user data to the third party it is important to note in Badr ¶192 “the computing system can determine an access action based on the user input data. The access action can be descriptive of a level of access to be provided to the third-party computing system to the user data on the blockchain. The level of access can be full access, restricted access, specific access, and/or no access.”)
Badr does not explicitly disclose: and wherein the one or more external systems comprise systems associated with historical employers of the one or more users; [and] communicate with the one or more external systems to validate the user information;
However, Lin in an analogous art discloses: the one or more external systems comprise systems associated with historical employers of the one or more users; [and] communicate with the one or more external systems to validate the user information; (Lin ¶277 teaches “the background check tool may include employment history verification. This may involve contacting previous employers [external systems] or clients to confirm [validate] work experience and performance [user information]. The system may use automated processes to streamline this verification, potentially integrating with professional networking platforms or other databases.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Badr wherein the one or more external systems comprise systems associated with historical employers of the one or more users; [and] communicate with the one or more external systems to validate the user information as disclosed by Lin to analyze user past employment and performance for evaluation (see Lin ¶277).
Claims 8 and 14 recite “computer program product” and “computer-implemented method” while the claims have slight variation in language but recite the same matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 2, Badr in view of Lin disclose: The system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to execute the computer-readable program code to identify a type of a user associated with the user device; identify an access level of the user associated with the user device; and display a level of data corresponding to the access level of the user. (Badr ¶192 and 194 teach identifying level of access to a third-party user and displaying data based on access level which could be “full access, restricted access, specific access, and/or no access.”)
Claims 9 and 15 recite “computer program product” and “computer-implemented method” while the claims have slight variation in language but recite the same matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 3, Badr in view of Lin disclose: The system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to execute the computer-readable program code to: receive a change request associated with a user of the one or more users; validate the change request based on receiving the change request associated with the user; and update a level of data associated with the user based on validating the change request. (Badr ¶192 and 194 teach receiving request to access data, which includes editing/changing the data according to Badr ¶183, from the third party and validating “the computing system can determine an access action based on the user input data.” And determining which level of data access to grant the third-party).
Claims 10 and 16 recite “computer program product” and “computer-implemented method” while the claims have slight variation in language but recite the same matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 5, Badr in view of Lin disclose: The system of claim 1, wherein the query is a user verification request. (Badr ¶191-192 teach the request comprises the steps of verifying the third-party and granting it the appropriate level of access).
Claim 18 recites “computer-implemented method” while the claim has slight variation in language but recites the same matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badr and Lin as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13-16, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Hamamoto (US 12518058 B2) hereinafter referred to as Hamamoto.
With respect to claim 4, Badr in view of Lin disclose: The system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to execute the computer-readable program code to:
Badr does not explicitly disclose: receive a request from a first user to generate a report associated with a second user of the one or more users; identify an access level of the first user; extract a level of data of the second user corresponding to the access level of the first user; generate the report associated with the second user using the extracted level of data; and display the report to the first user.
However, Hamamoto in an analogous art discloses: receive a request from a first user to generate a report associated with a second user of the one or more users; (Hamamoto claim 1 explains user requesting report of other users illustrated in Hamamoto Fig. 8)
identify an access level of the first user; extract a level of data of the second user corresponding to the access level of the first user; generate the report associated with the second user using the extracted level of data; and display the report to the first user. (Hamamoto claim 1 explains the requesting user access level is identified and only data they are authorized to access is obtained and displayed in the report illustrated in Hamamoto Fig. 8 and corresponding section of the patent’s specifications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Badr with receive a request from a first user to generate a report associated with a second user of the one or more users; identify an access level of the first user; extract a level of data of the second user corresponding to the access level of the first user; generate the report associated with the second user using the extracted level of data; and display the report to the first user as disclosed by Hamamoto
Claims 11 and 17 recite “computer program product” and “computer-implemented method” while the claims have slight variation in language but recite the same matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badr and Lin as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13-16, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Srivastava et al. (US 20250124449 A1) hereinafter referred to as Srivastava.
With respect to claim 6, Badr in view of Lin disclose: The system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to execute the computer-readable program code to:
Badr does not explicitly disclose: generate one or more digital cards associated with each of the one or more users, wherein the one or more digital cards comprises a mode for accessing at least a part of the validated record associated with each of the one or more users.
However, Srivastava in an analogous art discloses: generate one or more digital cards associated with each of the one or more users, wherein the one or more digital cards comprises a mode for accessing at least a part of the validated record associated with each of the one or more users. (Srivastava ¶45 and 50 teach access level of usage for the user transaction record using a generated digital transaction card, Fig. 1 unit 126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Badr with generate one or more digital cards associated with each of the one or more users, wherein the one or more digital cards comprises a mode for accessing at least a part of the validated record associated with each of the one or more users as disclosed by Srivastava to allow for usage of a digital card as part of the security to identify users (see Srivastava ¶45 and 50).
Claims 12 and 19 recite “computer program product” and “computer-implemented method” while the claims have slight variation in language but recite the same matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 7, Badr in view of Lin and Srivastava disclose: The system according to claim 6, wherein the mode for accessing at least a part of the validated record comprises at least one of a link and a scannable code. (Srivastava ¶25 teaches the card is a digital card with “bar code” [scannable code] for access and Srivastava ¶50 teaches access could be through a “link”).
Claims 13 and 20 recite “computer program product” and “computer-implemented method” while the claims have slight variation in language but recite the same matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights