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 action is in reply to the amendments filed on 6/25/2026, wherein:
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 20 are amended;
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-19 remain as original; and
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, medium, and method for determining a security risk which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-20 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims recite an abstract idea of: determining a security risk. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A system for revoking access to personal information, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: obtaining personal data of a user; storing the personal data in a digital wallet using a self-sovereign identity model; determining that a portion of the personal data in the digital wallet is subject to a data security risk; and transmitting for display on a device of the user, an alert regarding the data security risk and a control to revoke access to the portion of the personal data by updating a status of a verifiable credential associated with the portion of the personal data. Independent claims 8 and 15 recites similar steps that recite the abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as drafted, are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, since they recite fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “a system comprising: non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions executed by one or more processors; a digital wallet using a self-sovereign identify model; a device; and a verifiable credential”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite similar limitations as independent claims 1, 8, and 15; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements including generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “the system, the digital wallet, the device of the user, and the non-transitory computer-readable media”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 only recite the additional elements of “a system comprising: non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions executed by one or more processors; a digital wallet using a self-sovereign identify model; and a device; and a verifiable credential”. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “the system, the digital wallet, the device of the user, and the non-transitory computer-readable media”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the dependent claims to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0078443 to Tomasofsky et al. (hereinafter referred to as Tomasofsky), in view of US 20150254642 to Bondesen et al. (hereinafter referred to as Bondesen) and further in view of WO 2026/160815 to Shim et al (hereinafter referred to as Shim.
In regards to claim 1, Tomasofsky discloses a system for revoking access to personal information (systems and methods are provided for performing risk-based decisioning for payment card transactions involving a digital wallet and associated data, para. 0023), the system comprising: one or more processors (computer device for risk based analysis includes a processor coupled to a memory, para. 0004); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions (non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer executable instructions, para. 0006) that, when executed on the one or more processors (instructions executed by at least one processor, para. 0006), cause the one or more processors to perform operations (computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to identify fraud feature data from the digital wallet, para. 0006) comprising: obtaining personal data of a user (database 1420 includes digital wallet data 1422 which includes information associated with a cardholder’s digital wallet, para. 0148, fig. 14); storing the personal data in a digital wallet (payment card transaction is a card-not-present transaction conducted with a payment card in a digital wallet, para. 0053, figs. 7 and 8) using a self-sovereign identity model; determining that a portion of the personal data in the digital wallet (RBD module determines an access method score using digital wallet information, para. 0095, figs. 7 and 8) is subject to a data security risk (computing device programmed to identify fraud feature data from the digital wallet and compute a fraud score for the payment card transaction based at least in part on the fraud feature data, para. 0004, figs. 7 and 8); and transmitting an alert (method includes transmitting a message with the risk score included to a party associated with the payment card transaction, para. 0146, figs. 7 and 8). However, Tomasofsky fails to disclose storing using a self-sovereign identity model; transmitting for display on a device of the user, an alert regarding the data security risk and a control to revoke access to the portion of the personal data by updating a status of a verifiable credential associated with the portion of the personal data.
Bondesen, in the related field of sending an alert when potential exposure is detected for a payment credential in a digital wallet, teaches transmitting for display on a device of the user (initiate an alert corresponding to the digital wallet as a pop-up message on the apparatus, para. 0006), an alert regarding the data security risk and a control to revoke access to the portion of the personal data (initiating an alert indicating the at least one second payment credential has been or is being cancelled and asking a customer associated with the digital wallet whether the first payment credential or the at least one second payment credentials should be re-issued, para. 0004). . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to transmit an alert and revoke access as taught by the system of Bondesen. The motivation for doing so would have been reduce digital wallet exposure by initiating an exposure reduction measure (Bondesen, para. 0002). However, the combination of Bondesen and Tomasofsky fail to disclose storing using a self-sovereign identity model; and revoke by updating a status of a verifiable credential associated with the portion of the personal data.
Shim, in the related field of methods for replacing verifiable credentials, teaches storing using a self-sovereign identity model (as interest in Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) has increased, there has been active discussion regarding methods to prove the qualifications required to receive desired services using Verifiable Credentials (VC; hereinafter abbreviated as "Credentials"), Shim machine translation, page 5); and revoke by updating a status of a verifiable credential (replacement target management unit (310) can identify the VC issued by the issuer node as the replacement target VC when it detects that the security policy has been updated, such as when the recommended cryptographic algorithm is changed, when a deprecation notice for an existing cryptographic algorithm is issued, when there is a CVE (Common Vulnerabilities & Exposures) alert, or when regulatory requirements are changed, Shim machine translation, page 10) associated with the portion of the personal data (When the VC to be replaced is replaced with the new VC by receiving a new VC corresponding to the VC to be replaced from the issuer node, the VC replacement unit (320) according to one embodiment of the present invention may, if necessary, notify the user (holder node) that the VC has been replaced in a way that optimizes the user experience, Shim machine translation, page 10).
In regards to claim 7, modified Tomasofsky discloses the system in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the digital wallet further stores at least one of: one or more payment methods for making purchases (payment card transaction is a card-not-present transaction conducted with a payment card in a digital wallet, para. 0053, figs. 7 and 8); or one or more forms to enter personal information of the user.
In regards to claim 8, Tomasofsky discloses a computer-implemented method for revoking access to personal information (systems and methods are provided for performing risk-based decisioning for payment card transactions involving a digital wallet and associated data, para. 0023), the computer-implemented method (computer device for risk based analysis includes a processor coupled to a memory, para. 0004) comprising: obtaining personal data of a user (database 1420 includes digital wallet data 1422 which includes information associated with a cardholder’s digital wallet, para. 0148, fig. 14); storing the personal data in a digital wallet (payment card transaction is a card-not-present transaction conducted with a payment card in a digital wallet, para. 0053, figs. 7 and 8); determining that a portion of the personal data in the digital wallet (RBD module determines an access method score using digital wallet information, para. 0095, figs. 7 and 8) is subject to a data security risk (computing device programmed to identify fraud feature data from the digital wallet and compute a fraud score for the payment card transaction based at least in part on the fraud feature data, para. 0004, figs. 7 and 8); and transmitting an alert (method includes transmitting a message with the risk score included to a party associated with the payment card transaction, para. 0146, figs. 7 and 8). However, Tomasofsky fails to disclose storing using a self-sovereign identity model; transmitting for display on a device of the user, an alert regarding the data security risk and a control to revoke access to the portion of the personal data by updating a status of a verifiable credential associated with the portion of the personal data.
Bondesen, in the related field of sending an alert when potential exposure is detected for a payment credential in a digital wallet, teaches transmitting for display on a device of the user (initiate an alert corresponding to the digital wallet as a pop-up message on the apparatus, para. 0006), an alert regarding the data security risk and a control to revoke access to the at least the portion of the personal data (initiating an alert indicating the at least one second payment credential has been or is being cancelled and asking a customer associated with the digital wallet whether the first payment credential or the at least one second payment credentials should be re-issued, para. 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to transmit an alert and revoke access as taught by the system of Bondesen. The motivation for doing so would have been reduce digital wallet exposure by initiating an exposure reduction measure (Bondesen, para. 0002). However, the combination of Bondesen and Tomasofsky fail to disclose storing using a self-sovereign identity model; and revoke by updating a status of a verifiable credential associated with the portion of the personal data.
Shim, in the related field of methods for replacing verifiable credentials, teaches storing using a self-sovereign identity model (as interest in Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) has increased, there has been active discussion regarding methods to prove the qualifications required to receive desired services using Verifiable Credentials (VC; hereinafter abbreviated as "Credentials"), Shim machine translation, page 5); and revoke by updating a status of a verifiable credential (replacement target management unit (310) can identify the VC issued by the issuer node as the replacement target VC when it detects that the security policy has been updated, such as when the recommended cryptographic algorithm is changed, when a deprecation notice for an existing cryptographic algorithm is issued, when there is a CVE (Common Vulnerabilities & Exposures) alert, or when regulatory requirements are changed, Shim machine translation, page 10) associated with the portion of the personal data (When the VC to be replaced is replaced with the new VC by receiving a new VC corresponding to the VC to be replaced from the issuer node, the VC replacement unit (320) according to one embodiment of the present invention may, if necessary, notify the user (holder node) that the VC has been replaced in a way that optimizes the user experience, Shim machine translation, page 10).
In regards to claim 14, modified Tomasofsky discloses the computer-implemented method in claim 8, and further discloses wherein the digital wallet further stores at least one of: one or more payment methods for making purchases (payment card transaction is a card-not-present transaction conducted with a payment card in a digital wallet, para. 0053, figs. 7 and 8); or one or more forms to enter personal information of the user.
In regards to claim 15, Tomasofsky discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computing instructions (non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer executable instructions, para. 0006) for revoking access to personal information (systems and methods are provided for performing risk-based decisioning for payment card transactions involving a digital wallet and associated data, para. 0023), the computing instructions, when run on one or more processors (computer device for risk based analysis includes a processor coupled to a memory, para. 0004), causing the one or more processors to perform operations (instructions executed by at least one processor, para. 0006) comprising: obtaining personal data of a user (database 1420 includes digital wallet data 1422 which includes information associated with a cardholder’s digital wallet, para. 0148, fig. 14); storing the personal data in a digital wallet (payment card transaction is a card-not-present transaction conducted with a payment card in a digital wallet, para. 0053, figs. 7 and 8); determining that a portion of the personal data in the digital wallet (RBD module determines an access method score using digital wallet information, para. 0095, figs. 7 and 8) is subject to a data security risk (computing device programmed to identify fraud feature data from the digital wallet and compute a fraud score for the payment card transaction based at least in part on the fraud feature data, para. 0004, figs. 7 and 8); and transmitting an alert (method includes transmitting a message with the risk score included to a party associated with the payment card transaction, para. 0146, figs. 7 and 8). However, Tomasofsky fails to disclose storing using a self-sovereign identity model; transmitting for display on a device of the user, an alert regarding the data security risk and a control to revoke access to the portion of the personal data by updating a status of a verifiable credential associated with the portion of the personal data.
Bondesen, in the related field of sending an alert when potential exposure is detected for a payment credential in a digital wallet, teaches transmitting for display on a device of the user (initiate an alert corresponding to the digital wallet as a pop-up message on the apparatus, para. 0006), an alert regarding the data security risk and a control to revoke access to the portion of the personal data (initiating an alert indicating the at least one second payment credential has been or is being cancelled and asking a customer associated with the digital wallet whether the first payment credential or the at least one second payment credentials should be re-issued, para. 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to transmit an alert and revoke access as taught by the system of Bondesen. The motivation for doing so would have been reduce digital wallet exposure by initiating an exposure reduction measure (Bondesen, para. 0002). However, the combination of Bondesen and Tomasofsky fail to disclose storing using a self-sovereign identity model; and revoke by updating a status of a verifiable credential associated with the portion of the personal data.
Shim, in the related field of methods for replacing verifiable credentials, teaches storing using a self-sovereign identity model (as interest in Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) has increased, there has been active discussion regarding methods to prove the qualifications required to receive desired services using Verifiable Credentials (VC; hereinafter abbreviated as "Credentials"), Shim machine translation, page 5); and revoke by updating a status of a verifiable credential (replacement target management unit (310) can identify the VC issued by the issuer node as the replacement target VC when it detects that the security policy has been updated, such as when the recommended cryptographic algorithm is changed, when a deprecation notice for an existing cryptographic algorithm is issued, when there is a CVE (Common Vulnerabilities & Exposures) alert, or when regulatory requirements are changed, Shim machine translation, page 10) associated with the portion of the personal data (When the VC to be replaced is replaced with the new VC by receiving a new VC corresponding to the VC to be replaced from the issuer node, the VC replacement unit (320) according to one embodiment of the present invention may, if necessary, notify the user (holder node) that the VC has been replaced in a way that optimizes the user experience, Shim machine translation, page 10).
In regards to claim 20, modified Tomasofsky discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein:(A) the operations further comprise: detecting upcoming events of the user by obtaining new documents of the user to be stored in the digital wallet; and transmitting for display on the device of the user, a second alert to update one or more protections for the user; (B) the operations further comprise providing rewards to the user for taking one or more actions to protect the personal data of the user; or (Examiner Note: examiner has interpreted the “or” as requiring only one of “(A), (B), or (C)”) (C) the digital wallet further stores at least one of: payment methods for making purchases (payment card transaction is a card-not-present transaction conducted with a payment card in a digital wallet, para. 0053, figs. 7 and 8); or one or more forms to enter personal information of the user.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasofsky, in view of Bondesen, in view of Shim, and further in view of US 10,628,888 to Feldman et al. (hereinafter referred to as Feldman).
In regards to claim 2, modified Tomasofsky discloses the system in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the operations further comprise: determining a protection score comprising: comparing one or more active protections for the user to one or more potential protections for the user, wherein the one or more potential protections for the user are determined based in part on upcoming events of the user and demographic information of the user.
Feldman, in the related field of determining supplemental insurance, teaches determining a protection score (simulation result 1160 further includes an insurance protection score, which might be a letter grade, a numerical value, a label, a color, etc., col. 11, lines 4-29) comprising: comparing one or more active protections for the user to one or more potential protections for the user (FIG. 11 illustrates a virtual home bedroom display 1100 including a simulation result 1160 that has caused damages to the real world items within the room. The simulation result 1160 might indicate, for example, an amount of damages that were covered by the homeowner's insurance policy along with an amount of damages that were not covered by the policy (e.g., along with a suggest improvement to the homeowner's current level of protection), wherein the one or more potential protections for the user are determined based in part on upcoming events of the user (execute a simulation to predict an impact of an event in connection with a home owner’s policy, col. 11, lines 4-29) and demographic information of the user (based on demographic information and information about his home the display could provide personalized data explaining what a normal or typical loss experience might include, col. 11, line 66 – col. 12, line 3; recommendations for party based on demographic information, geographic information, income information, age information, gender information, home value, and average amount of insurance associated other insured parties, col. 8, lines 43-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to determine a protection score as taught by the system of Feldman. The motivation for doing so would have been to select an event to simulate (e.g., a flood, a hurricane, hail, tornado, a cyber-crime event, damage from a tree falling, a broken pipe, an electrical power surge, etc.) to predict an impact of an event in connection with a homeowner’s insurance policy with an amount of damages covered by insurance, an amount not covered by insurance, and suggested improvement to the current level of protection (Feldman, col. 11, lines 4-29).
In regards to claim 9, modified Tomasofsky discloses the computer-implemented method in claim 8 but fails to disclose further comprising: determining a protection score comprising: comparing one or more active protections for the user to one or more potential protections for the user, wherein the one or more potential protections for the user are determined based in part on upcoming events of the user and demographic information of the user.
Feldman, in the related field of determining supplemental insurance, teaches determining a protection score (simulation result 1160 further includes an insurance protection score, which might be a letter grade, a numerical value, a label, a color, etc., col. 11, lines 4-29) comprising: comparing one or more active protections for the user to one or more potential protections for the user (FIG. 11 illustrates a virtual home bedroom display 1100 including a simulation result 1160 that has caused damages to the real world items within the room. The simulation result 1160 might indicate, for example, an amount of damages that were covered by the homeowner's insurance policy along with an amount of damages that were not covered by the policy (e.g., along with a suggest improvement to the homeowner's current level of protection), wherein the one or more potential protections for the user are determined based in part on upcoming events of the user (execute a simulation to predict an impact of an event in connection with a home owner’s policy, col. 11, lines 4-29) and demographic information of the user (based on demographic information and information about his home the display could provide personalized data explaining what a normal or typical loss experience might include, col. 11, line 66 – col. 12, line 3; recommendations for party based on demographic information, geographic information, income information, age information, gender information, home value, and average amount of insurance associated other insured parties, col. 8, lines 43-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to determine a protection score as taught by the system of Feldman. The motivation for doing so would have been to select an event to simulate (e.g., a flood, a hurricane, hail, tornado, a cyber-crime event, damage from a tree falling, a broken pipe, an electrical power surge, etc.) to predict an impact of an event in connection with a homeowner’s insurance policy with an amount of damages covered by insurance, an amount not covered by insurance, and suggested improvement to the current level of protection (Feldman, col. 11, lines 4-29).
In regards to claim 16, modified Tomasofsky discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the operations further comprise: determining a protection score comprising: comparing one or more active protections for the user to one or more potential protections for the user, wherein the one or more potential protections for the user are determined based in part on upcoming events of the user and demographic information of the user.
Feldman, in the related field of determining supplemental insurance, teaches determining a protection score (simulation result 1160 further includes an insurance protection score, which might be a letter grade, a numerical value, a label, a color, etc., col. 11, lines 4-29) comprising: comparing one or more active protections for the user to one or more potential protections for the user (FIG. 11 illustrates a virtual home bedroom display 1100 including a simulation result 1160 that has caused damages to the real world items within the room. The simulation result 1160 might indicate, for example, an amount of damages that were covered by the homeowner's insurance policy along with an amount of damages that were not covered by the policy (e.g., along with a suggest improvement to the homeowner's current level of protection), wherein the one or more potential protections for the user are determined based in part on upcoming events of the user (execute a simulation to predict an impact of an event in connection with a home owner’s policy, col. 11, lines 4-29) and demographic information of the user (based on demographic information and information about his home the display could provide personalized data explaining what a normal or typical loss experience might include, col. 11, line 66 – col. 12, line 3; recommendations for party based on demographic information, geographic information, income information, age information, gender information, home value, and average amount of insurance associated other insured parties, col. 8, lines 43-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to determine a protection score as taught by the system of Feldman. The motivation for doing so would have been to select an event to simulate (e.g., a flood, a hurricane, hail, tornado, a cyber-crime event, damage from a tree falling, a broken pipe, an electrical power surge, etc.) to predict an impact of an event in connection with a homeowner’s insurance policy with an amount of damages covered by insurance, an amount not covered by insurance, and suggested improvement to the current level of protection (Feldman, col. 11, lines 4-29).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasofsky, in view of Bondesen, in view of Shim, in view of Feldman, and further in view of US 2026/0008474 to Byrne et al. (hereinafter referred to as Byrne).
In regards to claim 3, modified Tomasofsky discloses the system in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: generating a risk score (RBD module generates a risk score for the payment card transaction using payment card data, device information, and digital wallet information used during the transaction, para. 0053), wherein the risk score is generated (computing device programmed to identify fraud feature data from the digital wallet and compute a fraud score for the payment card transaction based at least in part on the fraud feature data, para. 0004, figs. 7 and 8), but fails to disclose generated based at least on a driving score and the protection score, and wherein the driving score is based at least on telematics data of the user.
Feldman, in the related field of determining supplemental insurance, teaches generated (simulation result 1320 further includes a graphical insurance risk meter displaying an amount of risk currently assumed by the user, col. 12, lines 57-60, fig. 13) based at least on a protection score (simulation result 1160 further includes an insurance protection score, which might be a letter grade, a numerical value, a label, a color, etc., col. 11, lines 4-29, fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to determine a protection score as taught by the system of Feldman. The motivation for doing so would have been to select an event to simulate (e.g., a flood, a hurricane, hail, tornado, a cyber-crime event, damage from a tree falling, a broken pipe, an electrical power surge, etc.) to predict an impact of an event in connection with a homeowner’s insurance policy with an amount of damages covered by insurance, an amount not covered by insurance, and suggested improvement to the current level of protection (Feldman, col. 11, lines 4-29). However, the combination of Tomasofsky, Bondesen, and Feldman fail to teach generated based at least on a driving score, and wherein the driving score is based at least on telematics data of the user.
Byrne, in the related field of driving scores for distraction-free driving teaches generated based at least on a driving score (app can include a determination that the user's driving score exceeds a threshold driving score to qualify the user for an additional streak token, para. 0122), and wherein the driving score is based at least on telematics data of the user (block 1230 can include determining a driving score based on the telematics data, and awarding a first streak token based on the driving score, para. 0122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to calculate a driving score as taught by the system of Byrne. The motivation for doing so would have been to reward 8user actions or inactions based on milestones, and outcomes, with intrinsic rewards in the app and/or extrinsic rewards, and otherwise celebrating when achieving successes, along with providing encouragement (Byrne, para. 0092).
In regards to claim 10, modified Tomasofsky discloses the computer-implemented method in claim 9, and discloses further comprising: generating a risk score (RBD module generates a risk score for the payment card transaction using payment card data, device information, and digital wallet information used during the transaction, para. 0053), wherein the risk score is generated (computing device programmed to identify fraud feature data from the digital wallet and compute a fraud score for the payment card transaction based at least in part on the fraud feature data, para. 0004, figs. 7 and 8), but fails to disclose generated based at least on a driving score and the protection score, and wherein the driving score is based at least on telematics data of the user.
Feldman, in the related field of determining supplemental insurance, teaches generated (simulation result 1320 further includes a graphical insurance risk meter displaying an amount of risk currently assumed by the user, col. 12, lines 57-60, fig. 13) based at least on a protection score (simulation result 1160 further includes an insurance protection score, which might be a letter grade, a numerical value, a label, a color, etc., col. 11, lines 4-29, fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to determine a protection score as taught by the system of Feldman. The motivation for doing so would have been to select an event to simulate (e.g., a flood, a hurricane, hail, tornado, a cyber-crime event, damage from a tree falling, a broken pipe, an electrical power surge, etc.) to predict an impact of an event in connection with a homeowner’s insurance policy with an amount of damages covered by insurance, an amount not covered by insurance, and suggested improvement to the current level of protection (Feldman, col. 11, lines 4-29). However, the combination of Tomasofsky, Bondesen, and Feldman fail to teach generated based at least on a driving score, and wherein the driving score is based at least on telematics data of the user
Byrne, in the related field of driving scores for distraction-free driving teaches generated based at least on a driving score (app can include a determination that the user's driving score exceeds a threshold driving score to qualify the user for an additional streak token, para. 0122), and wherein the driving score is based at least on telematics data of the user (block 1230 can include determining a driving score based on the telematics data, and awarding a first streak token based on the driving score, para. 0122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to calculate a driving score as taught by the system of Byrne. The motivation for doing so would have been to reward 8user actions or inactions based on milestones, and outcomes, with intrinsic rewards in the app and/or extrinsic rewards, and otherwise celebrating when achieving successes, along with providing encouragement (Byrne, para. 0092).
In regards to claim 17, modified Tomasofsky discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: generating a risk score (RBD module generates a risk score for the payment card transaction using payment card data, device information, and digital wallet information used during the transaction, para. 0053), wherein the risk score is generated (computing device programmed to identify fraud feature data from the digital wallet and compute a fraud score for the payment card transaction based at least in part on the fraud feature data, para. 0004, figs. 7 and 8), but fails to disclose generated based at least on a driving score and the protection score, and wherein the driving score is based at least on telematics data of the user.
Feldman, in the related field of determining supplemental insurance, teaches generated (simulation result 1320 further includes a graphical insurance risk meter displaying an amount of risk currently assumed by the user, col. 12, lines 57-60, fig. 13) based at least on a protection score (simulation result 1160 further includes an insurance protection score, which might be a letter grade, a numerical value, a label, a color, etc., col. 11, lines 4-29, fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to determine a protection score as taught by the system of Feldman. The motivation for doing so would have been to select an event to simulate (e.g., a flood, a hurricane, hail, tornado, a cyber-crime event, damage from a tree falling, a broken pipe, an electrical power surge, etc.) to predict an impact of an event in connection with a homeowner’s insurance policy with an amount of damages covered by insurance, an amount not covered by insurance, and suggested improvement to the current level of protection (Feldman, col. 11, lines 4-29). However, the combination of Tomasofsky, Bondesen, and Feldman fail to teach generated based at least on a driving score, and wherein the driving score is based at least on telematics data of the user
Byrne, in the related field of driving scores for distraction-free driving teaches generated based at least on a driving score (app can include a determination that the user's driving score exceeds a threshold driving score to qualify the user for an additional streak token, para. 0122), and wherein the driving score is based at least on telematics data of the user (block 1230 can include determining a driving score based on the telematics data, and awarding a first streak token based on the driving score, para. 0122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to calculate a driving score as taught by the system of Byrne. The motivation for doing so would have been to reward 8user actions or inactions based on milestones, and outcomes, with intrinsic rewards in the app and/or extrinsic rewards, and otherwise celebrating when achieving successes, along with providing encouragement (Byrne, para. 0092).
Claims 4, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasofsky, in view of Bondesen, in view of Shim, and further in view of US 2022/0277295 to Robinson-Morgan et al. (hereinafter referred to as Robinson-Morgan) and further in view of Byrne.
In regards to claim 4, modified Tomasofsky discloses the system in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein: the digital wallet stores one or more safe driving certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold; and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user.
Robinson-Morgan, in the related field of managing user credentials, teaches wherein the digital wallet stores (mobile device is configured to provision credentials to the digital wallet 120 (e.g., driver's license), para. 0027) one or more safe driving certifications (credentials added to the digital wallet includes driver's licenses, passports, payment cards (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, prepaid cards, bank cards, etc.), student ID cards, club cards (e.g., loyalty cards, etc.), employee ID cards (e.g., proofs of employment, etc.), certificates, certifications, diplomas, tickets (e.g., airplane tickets, performance tickets (e.g., sports, theatre, etc.), etc.), travel passes, health records (e.g., vaccination records, testing records, etc.), proofs of insurance, etc., paras. 0029-0031). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to store a driving certificate in a digital wallet as taught by the system of Robinson-Morgan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for verification of complex user claims through digital identities of the users by relying on credentials within the digital identities (Robinson-Morgan, para. 0012). However, the combination of Tomasofsky , Bondesen, and Robinson-Morgan fail to teach certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold; and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user.
Byrne, in the related field of driving scores for distraction-free driving teaches certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold (app can include a determination that the user's driving score exceeds a threshold driving score to qualify the user for an additional streak token, para. 0122), and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user (block 1230 can include determining a driving score based on the telematics data, and awarding a first streak token based on the driving score, para. 0122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to calculate a driving score as taught by the system of Byrne. The motivation for doing so would have been to reward user actions or inactions based on milestones, and outcomes, with intrinsic rewards in the app and/or extrinsic rewards, and otherwise celebrating when achieving successes, along with providing encouragement (Byrne, para. 0092).
In regards to claim 11, modified Tomasofsky discloses the computer-implemented method in claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein: the digital wallet stores one or more safe driving certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold; and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user.
Robinson-Morgan, in the related field of managing user credentials, teaches wherein the digital wallet stores (mobile device is configured to provision credentials to the digital wallet 120 (e.g., driver's license), para. 0027) one or more safe driving certifications (credentials added to the digital wallet includes driver's licenses, passports, payment cards (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, prepaid cards, bank cards, etc.), student ID cards, club cards (e.g., loyalty cards, etc.), employee ID cards (e.g., proofs of employment, etc.), certificates, certifications, diplomas, tickets (e.g., airplane tickets, performance tickets (e.g., sports, theatre, etc.), etc.), travel passes, health records (e.g., vaccination records, testing records, etc.), proofs of insurance, etc., paras. 0029-0031). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to store a driving certificate in a digital wallet as taught by the system of Robinson-Morgan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for verification of complex user claims through digital identities of the users by relying on credentials within the digital identities (Robinson-Morgan, para. 0012). However, the combination of Tomasofsky , Bondesen, and Robinson-Morgan fail to teach certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold; and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user.
Byrne, in the related field of driving scores for distraction-free driving teaches certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold (app can include a determination that the user's driving score exceeds a threshold driving score to qualify the user for an additional streak token, para. 0122), and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user (block 1230 can include determining a driving score based on the telematics data, and awarding a first streak token based on the driving score, para. 0122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to calculate a driving score as taught by the system of Byrne. The motivation for doing so would have been to reward user actions or inactions based on milestones, and outcomes, with intrinsic rewards in the app and/or extrinsic rewards, and otherwise celebrating when achieving successes, along with providing encouragement (Byrne, para. 0092).
In regards to claim 18, modified Tomasofsky discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein: the digital wallet stores one or more safe driving certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold; and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user.
Robinson-Morgan, in the related field of managing user credentials, teaches wherein the digital wallet stores (mobile device is configured to provision credentials to the digital wallet 120 (e.g., driver's license), para. 0027) one or more safe driving certifications (credentials added to the digital wallet includes driver's licenses, passports, payment cards (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, prepaid cards, bank cards, etc.), student ID cards, club cards (e.g., loyalty cards, etc.), employee ID cards (e.g., proofs of employment, etc.), certificates, certifications, diplomas, tickets (e.g., airplane tickets, performance tickets (e.g., sports, theatre, etc.), etc.), travel passes, health records (e.g., vaccination records, testing records, etc.), proofs of insurance, etc., paras. 0029-0031). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to store a driving certificate in a digital wallet as taught by the system of Robinson-Morgan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for verification of complex user claims through digital identities of the users by relying on credentials within the digital identities (Robinson-Morgan, para. 0012). However, the combination of Tomasofsky , Bondesen, and Robinson-Morgan fail to teach certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold; and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user.
Byrne, in the related field of driving scores for distraction-free driving teaches certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold (app can include a determination that the user's driving score exceeds a threshold driving score to qualify the user for an additional streak token, para. 0122), and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user (block 1230 can include determining a driving score based on the telematics data, and awarding a first streak token based on the driving score, para. 0122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to calculate a driving score as taught by the system of Byrne. The motivation for doing so would have been to reward user actions or inactions based on milestones, and outcomes, with intrinsic rewards in the app and/or extrinsic rewards, and otherwise celebrating when achieving successes, along with providing encouragement (Byrne, para. 0092).
In regards to claim 19, modified Tomasofsky discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein: the digital wallet stores one or more safe driving certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold; and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user.
Robinson-Morgan, in the related field of managing user credentials, teaches wherein the digital wallet stores (mobile device is configured to provision credentials to the digital wallet 120 (e.g., driver's license), para. 0027) one or more safe driving certifications (credentials added to the digital wallet includes driver's licenses, passports, payment cards (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, prepaid cards, bank cards, etc.), student ID cards, club cards (e.g., loyalty cards, etc.), employee ID cards (e.g., proofs of employment, etc.), certificates, certifications, diplomas, tickets (e.g., airplane tickets, performance tickets (e.g., sports, theatre, etc.), etc.), travel passes, health records (e.g., vaccination records, testing records, etc.), proofs of insurance, etc., paras. 0029-0031). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to store a driving certificate in a digital wallet as taught by the system of Robinson-Morgan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for verification of complex user claims through digital identities of the users by relying on credentials within the digital identities (Robinson-Morgan, para. 0012). However, the combination of Tomasofsky , Bondesen, and Robinson-Morgan fail to teach certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold; and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user.
Byrne, in the related field of driving scores for distraction-free driving teaches certifications when a driving score of the user meets a score threshold (app can include a determination that the user's driving score exceeds a threshold driving score to qualify the user for an additional streak token, para. 0122), and the driving score is based in part on telematics data of the user (block 1230 can include determining a driving score based on the telematics data, and awarding a first streak token based on the driving score, para. 0122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to calculate a driving score as taught by the system of Byrne. The motivation for doing so would have been to reward user actions or inactions based on milestones, and outcomes, with intrinsic rewards in the app and/or extrinsic rewards, and otherwise celebrating when achieving successes, along with providing encouragement (Byrne, para. 0092).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasofsky, in view of Bondesen, in view of Shim, and further in view of US 12,354,168 to Pariseau et al. (hereinafter referred to as Pariseau).
In regards to claim 5, modified Tomasofsky discloses the system in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the operations further comprise: detecting upcoming events of the user by obtaining new documents of the user to be stored in the digital wallet; and transmitting for display on the device of the user, a second alert to update one or more protections for the user.
Pariseau, in the related field of managing a digital card such as an insurance card in an electronic wallet, teaches detecting upcoming events of the user (continuously monitor, through continued communication with the central server, the existence of any updates to the insurance policy associated with the digital card, col. 2, lines 1-24) by obtaining new documents of the user to be stored in the digital wallet (digital wallet card 106 represents an electronic representation of a physical insurance card and is created within the mobile digital wallet 108, col. 5, lines 21-34); and transmitting for display on the device of the user (when an update is detected, the central server in communication with the mobile computing device, may inform the corresponding API and UMP to generate an alert on the user interface of the mobile computing device), a second alert to update one or more protections for the user (mobile computing device provides as part of the update notification displayed, an embedded link to automatically update the digital wallet card according to new policy details provided from the central server, col. 4, lines 30-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to detect a document update and generate a second alert to update a digital wallet as taught by the system of Pariseau. The motivation for doing so would have been to manage and update digital insurance cards within a digital wallet located on a mobile computing device through communication with a central server that stores policy information (Pariseau, col. 4, lines 7-14).
In regards to claim 12, modified Tomasofsky discloses the computer-implemented method in claim 8, but fails to disclose further comprising: detecting upcoming events of the user by obtaining new documents of the user to be stored in the digital wallet; and transmitting for display on the device of the user, a second alert to update one or more protections for the user.
Pariseau, in the related field of managing a digital card such as an insurance card in an electronic wallet, teaches detecting upcoming events of the user (continuously monitor, through continued communication with the central server, the existence of any updates to the insurance policy associated with the digital card, col. 2, lines 1-24) by obtaining new documents of the user to be stored in the digital wallet (digital wallet card 106 represents an electronic representation of a physical insurance card and is created within the mobile digital wallet 108, col. 5, lines 21-34); and transmitting for display on the device of the user (when an update is detected, the central server in communication with the mobile computing device, may inform the corresponding API and UMP to generate an alert on the user interface of the mobile computing device), a second alert to update one or more protections for the user (mobile computing device provides as part of the update notification displayed, an embedded link to automatically update the digital wallet card according to new policy details provided from the central server, col. 4, lines 30-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to detect a document update and generate an alert to update a digital wallet as taught by the system of Pariseau. The motivation for doing so would have been to manage and update digital insurance cards within a digital wallet located on a mobile computing device through communication with a central server that stores policy information (Pariseau, col. 4, lines 7-14).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasofsky, in view of Bondesen, in view of Shim, and further in view of US 20210342822 to Lau et al. (hereinafter referred to as Lau).
In regards to claim 6, modified Tomasofsky discloses the system in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the operations further comprise: providing rewards to the user for taking one or more actions to protect the personal data of the user.
Lau, in the related field of compliance systems for securing data, teaches wherein the operations further comprise: providing rewards to the user for taking one or more actions to protect the personal data of the user (uploading sensitive data such as personal documents, identification cards, selfies, physical address verification or refugee status, a digital KYC profile is created, an individual risk score is procured and the user 101 receives a proof of compliance token indicating they have undergone a KYC check, para. 0108). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to provide a reward for a data action as taught by the system of Lau. The motivation for doing so would have been to reward a user each time that sensitive data is updated, to incentivize a user to continuously update their sensitive data and thereby reinforce the validity of users and the value of their data on the network (Lau para. 0113).
In regards to claim 13, modified Tomasofsky discloses the computer-implemented method in claim 8, but fails to disclose further comprising: providing rewards to the user for taking one or more actions to protect the personal data of the user.
Lau, in the related field of compliance systems for securing data, teaches wherein the operations further comprise: providing rewards to the user for taking one or more actions to protect the personal data of the user (uploading sensitive data such as personal documents, identification cards, selfies, physical address verification or refugee status, a digital KYC profile is created, an individual risk score is procured and the user 101 receives a proof of compliance token indicating they have undergone a KYC check, para. 0108). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Tomasofsky with the ability to provide a reward for a data action as taught by the system of Lau. The motivation for doing so would have been to reward a user each time that sensitive data is updated, to incentivize a user to continuously update their sensitive data and thereby reinforce the validity of users and the value of their data on the network (Lau para. 0113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered by the Examiner. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered by the Examiner. However, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive, and therefore the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered by the Examiner. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection required by the Applicant amending the claim. As referenced above in the final rejection, the combination of Tomasofsky, Bondesen and Shim teaches the limitations of amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the dependent claims pursuant to 35 USC 103 are also moot.
The Applicant argues that under Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Applicant states on pages 8 and 9 of their remarks, that the limitations of the independent claims under Prong 2 of Step 2A are indicative of integration into a practical application because they provide improvements in in the technical field of personal data security and use the claimed combination of steps in a meaningful way that is generally not linking to a technological environment. Applicant further argues on pages 9 and 10 of their Remarks that the claims limitations are indicative of an inventive concept under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG because the claimed limitations when combined together and considered as a whole provide an improvement to a technical field and are not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitations are indicative of integration into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A of the PEG. Using a computer to: store a verifiable credential in a digital wallet using an SSI model, transmit an alert regarding a determined security risk, and provide control to update the verifiable credential; is nothing more than executing instructions to apply the exception to a computer. This is interpreted by the Examiner as using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “a system comprising: non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions executed by one or more processors; a digital wallet using a self-sovereign identify model; a device; and a verifiable credential” are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). There is no improvement to the claimed computer elements, or to any other technology or technical field. The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. Therefore, the claimed limitations do not meet the criteria or considerations as indicative of integration into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s further argument under Step 2B of the PEG, that the amended claim limitations recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept that renders the claims patent eligible because the claims provide for improvements to the technical field. As stated previously, using a computer to: store a verifiable credential in a digital wallet using an SSI model, transmit an alert regarding a determined security risk, and provide control to update the verifiable credential s; is nothing more than executing instructions to apply the exception to a computer. The additional elements of “a system comprising: non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions executed by one or more processors; a digital wallet using a self-sovereign identify model; a device; and a verifiable credential” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, as indicated further in the final rejection above, the claimed limitations under MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) amount to well-understood routine and conventional activities of: receiving and transmitting data over a network, the performance of repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting results of an analysis. Therefore, the rejections of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 101 are maintained.
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 Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights