DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 8-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamel (20210367778), and further in view of Suen (11601421).
Regarding claim 1, Hamel teaches An apparatus comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions; and a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to (abstract):
obtain an image of a user; obtain a public key (par.17-18, 27-32);
Hamel does not expressly disclose, however, Suen teaches providing a picture and generating a DID (col.3, 30-67), obtain a public key of the apparatus; transmit a request for creating a decentralized identification (DID) information to an external device; and receive the DID information along with a digital token credential and an user certificate from the external device (col.4, 30-67).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamel to use tokens as taught by Suen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide additional means of identity verification (Suen, cols.4-5).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Hamel teaches A decentralized identity management method comprising (abstract):
obtaining, by an electronic device, an image of a user and a public key (par.17-18, 27-32);
transmitting, by the electronic device, a request for creating a decentralized identification (DID) information to an external device (par.24-25); and
Hamel does not expressly disclose, however Suen teaches providing a picture and generating a DID (col.3, 30-67), and receiving, by the electronic device, the DID information along with a digital token credential and an user certificate from the external device (col.4, 30-67).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamel to use tokens as taught by Suen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide additional means of identity verification (Suen, cols.4-5).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Hamel/Suen teaches wherein the image is a selfie image of the user, the public key is obtained by generating an RSA key pair and the digital token credential is signed by a private key of the external device.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Hamel/Suen teaches transmit a document credential request to the external device; and receive a document credential from the external device (Hamel, par.17-18).
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamel/Suen, and further in view of Uhr (20220029825).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Hamel/Suen does not expressly disclose, however Uhr teaches create a signature by signing a credential subject and a type of document using a private key portion of an RSA key pair; assemble the document credential request with the credential subject, the type of the document, the digital token credential and a proof that comprises the signature; and transmit the document credential request to the external device (par.59-70).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamel/Suen to issue credentials and signing documents as taught by Uhr.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide additional security and means for identity verification (Uhr, par.3-21).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Hamel/Suen/Uhr teaches wherein the signature is a JSON Web Signature (JWS), the credential subject comprises at least one of document information and an image scanned from a document and the document is one of a driver's license, a passport, or a vaccination card (Hamel, 17-19, 25-30, Uhr, 67-74).
Regarding claim 17, Hamel/Suen does not expressly disclose, however Uhr teaches receiving a document credential request to the external device, the document credential request comprising a credential subject, a type of document, the digital token credential and a proof that comprises a signature; and transmitting a document credential from the external device (par.59-70).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamel/Suen to issue credentials and signing documents as taught by Uhr.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide additional security and means for identity verification (Uhr, par.3-21).
Regarding claim 19, Hamel/Suen/Uhr teaches wherein the signature is a JSON Web Signature (JWS),the credential subject comprises at least one of document information and an image scanned from a document and the document is one of a driver's license, a passport, or a vaccination card (Hamel, 17-19, 25-30, Uhr, 67-74).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamel/Suen, and further in view of Lehmann (20160041972).
Regarding claim 16, Hamel/Suen does not expressly disclose, however, Lehmann teaches setting an expiration time; and discarding a temporarily stored copy of the DID at the expiration time (par.71-82).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamel/Suen to manage documents as taught by Lehmann.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide additional control of document management (Lehmann, par.2-11, 70-90).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14, 18, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to document issuance using DIDs and cryptography, Michaelis (20240113902, 20230214370), Robinson-Morgan (20220277295), Toth (20190097812), Sebastian (20200145219).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights