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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on May 12, 2026. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 18 are amended. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 6, 13, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claim, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 8, and 15. Thus claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “the identity resolution limitations recited in amended claim 1 provide a concrete technical improvement to identity verification systems; as recited by amended claim 1, the limitations “identify unique information …”, “determine whether the first information of anonymous identity is deficient …”, and “transmit a message to the individual with the anonymous identity indicating that the first information is deficient …”, represent specific technical operations that improve the quality and completeness of anonymous identity data; similar to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims do not merely recite the abstract concept of identity verification implemented on generic computer components, rather, the claims recite a specific technical architecture comprising an identity server with an identity engine that performs identity resolution to identify deficiencies in anonymous identity information, and transmits messages to individuals indicating how to supplement their deficient anonymous identity data; this specific technical solution improves the functioning of computer-based anonymous identity verification systems; for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claims 8 and 15 have been amended to recite corresponding limitations and integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons as amended claim 1; and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 depend from amended claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and are patent eligible for at least the same reasons as the independent claims from which they depend”.
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20260120100 A1, para 2), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘100 A1, para 2), discloses that the invention generally relates to privacy enhancing and secure identification and/or affirmation of legitimate individuals, entities, …, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 8 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations “receiving, with an electronic processor, first information regarding an anonymous identity of an individual; performing, with the electronic processor, a digital identity affirmation regarding the anonymous identity of the individual based on the first information that is received; and transmitting, with the electronic processor, second information regarding the digital identity affirmation to a partner device, the second information indicating an amount of trust of the anonymous identity, wherein performing the digital identity affirmation regarding the anonymous identity of the individual based on the first information that is received further includes performing identity resolution, and wherein performing the identity resolution further includes identifying unique information in the first information with respect to the anonymous identity, determining whether the first information of anonymous identity is deficient based on the unique information that is identified, and transmitting a message to the individual with the anonymous identity indicating that the first information is deficient and indicating other anonymized information that supplements the anonymous identity and corrects the deficiency”, which represent the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an electronic processor”, “a digital identity”, and “a partner device”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol”.
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, an “identification verification protocol”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol.” The claim is not directed to improving computer functionality nor improving another technology or technical field, but improving the method for an “identification verification protocol.” For potential improvement in an abstract idea, an “identification verification protocol”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. an identification verification protocol concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, as well as the additional elements of “a server comprising: a memory storing instructions, an electronic processor coupled to the memory, a communication interface coupled to the electronic processor, and wherein execution of the instructions by the electronic processor causes the electronic processor to: …”, “a digital identity”, “a partner device via the communication interface”, and “the execution of the instructions by the electronic processor further causes the electronic processor to: …”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describe the concept of an “identification verification protocol” using computer technology (e.g., “a server” and “memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by an electronic processor, cause the electronic processor to perform a set of operations comprising: …”, “a communication interface”, “a digital identity”, and “a partner device via the communication interface”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describe the concept of an “identification verification protocol” using computer technology (e.g., “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a digital identity”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, for paragraph 14 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026, Applicant has adequately amended to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, moot. Applicant has amended so that claim 15 now recites “receiving first information regarding an anonymous identity of an individual via a communication interface”, which finds support in the specification, (PG Pub US 20260120100 A1, para 5), which recites “… receive first information regarding an anonymous identity of an individual …”. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, paragraph 14 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, for paragraph 15 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026, Applicant has canceled claim 19 to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, moot. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Written Description, paragraph 15 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Means-Plus-Function, paragraph 17 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026, Applicant has amended claim 1 to now recite “a communication interface coupled to the electronic processor”, and has amended claim 2 to now recite “…, wherein the execution of the instructions by the electronic processor further causes the electronic processor to communicate with an open banking network via the communication interface ”, to render the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Means-Plus-Function, moot. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Means-Plus-Function, paragraph 17 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 102, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026, Applicant has amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claim 1 now recites “wherein execution of the instructions by the electronic processor causes the electronic processor to: receive …, perform …, and transmit …” The recitation is not a mere expression of intended use. The claim language provides specific, structural limitations in the electronic processor, such that the electronic processor is be able to perform the recited features in order to satisfy the limitations of the claim. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for claims 1-7 of the Final Rejection Office Action dated February 06, 2026.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, after further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious:
“identify unique information in the first information with respect to the anonymous identity”,
“determine whether the first information of anonymous identity is deficient based on the unique information that is identified”, and
“transmit a message to the individual with the anonymous identity indicating that the first information is deficient and indicating other anonymized information that supplements the anonymous identity and corrects the deficiency”.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being rescinded is maintained.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-23 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, claims 1-5, 7, and 21-23 are directed to a “server”, claims 8-12 and 14 are directed to a “method”, and claims 15-18 and 20 are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 8 recites an “identification verification protocol”, which is a form of fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e., organizing human activity), and an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving, with an electronic processor, first information regarding an anonymous identity of an individual; performing, with the electronic processor, a digital identity affirmation regarding the anonymous identity of the individual based on the first information that is received; and transmitting, with the electronic processor, second information regarding the digital identity affirmation to a partner device, the second information indicating an amount of trust of the anonymous identity, wherein performing the digital identity affirmation regarding the anonymous identity of the individual based on the first information that is received further includes performing identity resolution, and wherein performing the identity resolution further includes identifying unique information in the first information with respect to the anonymous identity, determining whether the first information of anonymous identity is deficient based on the unique information that is identified, and transmitting a message to the individual with the anonymous identity indicating that the first information is deficient and indicating other anonymized information that supplements the anonymous identity and corrects the deficiency”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “an electronic processor”, “a digital identity”, and “a partner device”, amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describes the concept of an “identification verification protocol” using computer technology (e.g., “an electronic processor” and “a partner device”). Therefore, these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory.
Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, as well as the additional elements of “a server comprising: a memory storing instructions, an electronic processor coupled to the memory, a communication interface coupled to the electronic processor, and wherein execution of the instructions by the electronic processor causes the electronic processor to: …”, “a digital identity”, “a partner device via the communication interface”, and “the execution of the instructions by the electronic processor further causes the electronic processor to: …”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describe the concept of an “identification verification protocol” using computer technology (e.g., “a server” and “memory”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Claim 15 also recites the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, as well as the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by an electronic processor, cause the electronic processor to perform a set of operations comprising: …”, “a communication interface”, “a digital identity”, and “a partner device via the communication interface”, which amount to merely “apply it”, as they represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), 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 claim merely describe the concept of an “identification verification protocol” using computer technology (e.g., “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a digital identity”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-18, and 20-23 further describe the abstract idea of an “identification verification protocol”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15, above.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17-19, 21, and 23 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of an “identification verification protocol”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology or a technical field, when analyzed under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 recite new additional elements of “an open banking network” and “a linked financial account”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 4 and 11 recite new additional elements of “a first open banking link” and “active links to major financial institutions”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 recite new additional elements of “links between identity data of the anonymous identity” and “verified digital statements”, which do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, the do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 22 recites a new additional element of “an identified engine of the server”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Hence, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kragh (U. S. Patent No. 11055390 B1) – Identity Validation And Verification System And Associated Methods
Kragh discloses a computer implemented system and method that provides an authenticated unique digital identity through a verifying and validating an asserted identity of a user for enrollment in a secure personal dataset accessing system, wherein the personal dataset includes identifiable attributes of the user. Authenticity of an asserted user identity includes electronically verified identifiable attributes to form the personal dataset. A generated digital security element results in the user electronically receiving a password and unique electronic address assigned to the user. The digital security element is then transmitted to the user and enables electronic access to the personal dataset, the personal dataset having been authenticated through the verification and validation.
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 STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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, Ryan D. Donlon can be reached (571) 270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights