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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits, in response to the claims filed on May 26, 2026.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 11-15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 have been examined.
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 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of authentication of users without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 16 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 16.
In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, and claims 16-20 are directed to a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable storage devices. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 16 is directed to a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable storage devices storing data instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to, which performs a series of steps: “receive user identifying information; generate a first key based on at least some of the user identifying information; generate a secure transaction object based on at least some of the user identifying information, wherein the secure transaction object is associated with the first key; receive a second key; in response to determining that the second key matches the first key, transmit the secure transaction object; and delete the secure transaction object after transmission”. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of authentication of users (with the exception of the italicized bold terms above), which correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human. The system limitations, e.g., system, system, one or more processors and one or more computer-readable storage devices do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims recite “receiving user identifying information; receiving a second key; in response to determining that the second key matches the first key, transmitting the secure transaction object.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of authentication of users, which correspond to Mental Processes: evaluating/authenticating data. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case Certain Methods of Organizing Human and a Mental Processes, is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claim 16, such as a system (e.g., generic computer processor), one or more processors (e.g., generic computer processor) and one or more computer-readable storage devices (e.g., generic storage device) are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Specifically, the system, one or more processors and one or more computer-readable storage devices performs the steps or functions of: “receive user identifying information; generate a first key based on at least some of the user identifying information; generate a secure transaction object based on at least some of the user identifying information, wherein the secure transaction object is associated with the first key; receive a second key; in response to determining that the second key matches the first key, transmit the secure transaction object; and delete the secure transaction object after transmission. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 16 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of claim 16, such as a system, one or more processors and one or more computer-readable storage devices limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can be extended to the independent claim 1 and hence, claim 1 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 16.
Regarding dependent claims
Claim 2 recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein generating the first key on at least some of the user identifying information includes: generating a hash of a first piece of information in the user identifying information; generating a hash of a second piece of information in the user identifying information; combining the hash of the first piece of information and the hash of the second piece of information to form a combination; and hashing the combination” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 1; and thus, correspond to “Mental Processes”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of generating and combining hashes and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 3 recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the first key and the secure transaction object are generated based on the same user identifying information” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 1; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional functions of generation of the first key and secure transaction and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 4 recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the user identifying information includes at least one of a self-portrait of a user, contact information of the user, an image of an identification document of the user, data embedded on an integrated circuit in the identification document, and an image of a fingerprint of the user” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 1; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of defining the user identifying information and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 5 recites: “The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a digital travel credential, wherein generating the secure transaction object is further based on the digital travel credential” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 1; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of generating a digital travel credential (e.g., a digital document) and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 6 recites: The method of claim 5, wherein the digital travel credential is generated based on data embedded on an integrated circuit in an identification document of the user further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 1; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element(s) of integrated circuit is recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the identified additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites: “The method of claim 1, further comprising: verifying, using the signature, that the secure transaction object has not been altered” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 1; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of verifying, using the signature and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 8 recites: “The method of claim 1, further comprising: encrypting the secure transaction object” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 1; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of encrypting the secure transaction object and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 9 recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the secure transaction object comprises one or more attribute-value pairs” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 1; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of defining the secure transaction object and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 10 recites: “The method of claim 9, wherein the secure transaction object has a JSON format” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 1; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of defining the secure transaction object and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 17 recites: “The system of claim 16, wherein first key and the secure transaction object are generated based on different user identifying information” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 16; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of generating and the secure transaction object and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 18 recites: “The system of claim 16, wherein the first key is generated based on all of the user identifying information” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 16; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of generating keys and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claim 19 recites: “The system of claim 16, further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: generate a digital travel credential, wherein generation of the secure transaction object is further based on the digital travel credential” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 16; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element(s) of one or more processors is recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the identified additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites: “The system of claim 19, wherein the digital travel credential is generated based on at least some of the user identifying information” further define the abstract idea that is present in its respective independent claim 16; and thus, correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping of abstract ideas which represents an additional function of generating digital travel credential and further elaborates on the abstract idea of authentication of users as noted in claim 16. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Thus, claims 1-10 and 16-20 are not patent-eligible.
Statement Regarding Prior Art for claims 1-10 and 16-20
Regarding independent clams 1 and 16: Benteo et al. (US 20150046699 A1) discloses:
receiving user identifying information (see abstract and paragraph [0013] and Figs. 2A and 2B);
generating a first key based on at least some of the user identifying information, (see paragraphs [0015] and [0110]);
generating a secure transaction object (e.g., public identity) based on at least some of the user identifying information, […] (see paragraphs [0020] and [0028]);
receiving a second key, (see abstract and paragraphs [0026] and [0028);
in response to determining that the second key matches the first key, [identification object is validated] (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036]); and
However, prior art does not disclose, neither singly nor in combination all of the specific combination of claims limitations which includes:
generating a secure transaction object based on at least some of the user identifying information, wherein the secure transaction object is associated with the first key; in response to determining that the second key matches the first key, transmitting the secure transaction object; and deleting the secure transaction object after transmission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are the following:
Wisniewski (US 20210110357 A1) discloses, a digital notarization intermediary system functions as an intermediary between a requestor and a participant in a transaction sequence. The identification system may identify a transaction sequence that involves digitally notarizing a digital item, determine that a first transaction is performed that triggers a second transaction, and perform an action to begin the second transaction. The identification system may receive a request from a requestor to submit a transaction item to a participant, biometrically determine an identity of the requestor, and submit the transaction item and the identity to the participant. The identification system may receive a request to communicate with a participant, use at least information in the request to determine an identity of the participant, retrieve contact information for the participant from the identity information using the identity of the participant, and communicate with the participant based on the request using the contact information.
SEO et al. (US 20180026790 A1) discloses, A system and method for proving forgery of digital file using a smart phone proves whether digital file recorded as digital evidence is tampered after the digital file is created, and is used in digital forensic and criminal investigation by proving that the digital file is not forged through the forgery confirmation system, and the digital file is used for substituting for notary fee, and used as data for proving a situation in an incident, data for proving foundation works after building construction, or evidence data for voice file in a threatening case. Since content transmitting information while using smart phone is stored as digital data through screen capture and a list of applications executed before the capture is converted and stored as hash value, the digital information authentication system through smart phone screen capture confirms actual facts thereafter by proving that the corresponding content is an original copy.
Xinyu (US 20240243922 A1) discloses, The present disclosure provides a personal identity management system and method. The method includes a client and a service end. The client uses a user-specified keyword to perform hierarchical management on keys, and the service end accepts the digital identity information from the client and performs digital signature and further displays the information in public. In the method of the present disclosure, available digital identities can be generated securely and quickly with an unlimited quantity, such that the user can perform switching between multiple digital identities so as to achieve the effect of combating the tracking for the digital identities and protecting the user privacy better. Furthermore, in a scenario where identity verification and access control are required, verification can be completed by providing public key and signature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAHED ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights