DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1 –21 in application 19/217,952.
Preliminary Amendment was received on 12/26/2025.
Claim 1 was canceled.
Claims 2-21 are new.
Claims 2-21 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Original claim 1 appears to support a broader distributed ledger token rights concept, but it does not appear to provide written description support for several later-added limitations, including a digital recognition bade, an anchor token tied to an owner, a unique identifier specific to the owner, a reference to a public key of the owner’s digital wallet, and performing personalized functionality based on confirming the unique identifier. Accordingly, entitlement to the earlier priority date for the amended claims is questionable in the provisional specifications.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112b because the phrase “wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the digital recognition badge” is indefinite. The phrase in the limitation appears to be an incomplete Markush grouping, reciting only a single listed item and leaving it unclear whether other alternatives are intended. Accordingly, the scope of the limitation is uncertain. See MPEP 2117 and 2173.05(h).
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined at Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, it is determined that claims 2-9 and 18-21 are directed to a machine. Claims 10-17 are directed to a method. Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Here, independent claim 2 recites (Abstract idea bolded):
A non-transitory machine-readable medium containing bytecode stored within an immutable ledger, wherein the bytecode encodes an anchor token;
wherein the anchor token: is a particular token that is inextricably tied to an owner of a digital recognition badge; and
comprises: a unique identifier specific to the owner of the digital recognition badge; and a reference to a public key of a digital wallet of the owner; and
wherein the digital recognition badge: is awarded, through a blockchain, to the owner by an organization to which the owner belongs; and
performs at least one personalized functionality depending on a confirmation of the unique identifier.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of access rights and steps of awarding and performing through a digital badge. This abstract idea, which is seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interaction. Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since access rights and rewarding performance with digital recognition badges fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of abstract ideas.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) recite a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. Here, claim 1 recites the additional elements of: “anchor token” and “blockchain.” Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they provide only a general link to a technological environment and therefore do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed (i.e., provide an inventive concept). MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s): “anchor token” and “blockchain” to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than performing generic computer functions. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Independent claims 10 and 18 are similar and so are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as not being patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-9, 11-17, and 19-21 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2 and the method of claim 10, wherein the digital recognition badge exclusively operates on a platform running on a trusted execution environment (TEE). There are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 3 and the method of claim 11, wherein the platform is at least one selected from the group consisting of a social media platform, a gaming platform, and a subscription service platform. These claims elaborate on the environment in which the abstract idea is carried out, and there are no new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 5 and 13: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2 and the method of claim 10, wherein the digital recognition badge, when stored in the digital wallet of the owner, provides at least one access right to contents in the digital wallet to the organization. These claims elaborate on the abstract idea by reciting access rights related to possession of the recognition badge. The digital wallet is an additional element that serves to store the recognition badge, much like a conventional wallet, but merely provides a general link to the technological environment. As such, the digital wallet does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 5 and the method of claim 13, wherein the at least one access right is used to analyze the contents in the digital wallet to determine whether to award at least one additional digital recognition badge. The concepts of access rights elaborate on the abstract idea discussed in the independent claims. The digital wallet is analyzed in the same way as claims 5 and 13: it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6 and the method of claim 14, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the digital recognition badge and the at least one additional digital recognition badge is awarded in response to a determined accomplishment by the owner. This elaborates on the abstract idea under certain methods of organizing human activity by reciting managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of social recognition for personal accomplishments. There are no new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 8, 16, and 21: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2 , the method of claim 10 and the distributed system of claim 18, wherein the anchor token further comprises a biometric template corresponding to the owner; and wherein a given functionality of the at least one personalized functionality is implemented in response to a biometric authentication based on the biometric template. These claims introduce an abstract idea that falls under a mental process because observing and evaluating biometric information such as a fingerprint, and judging whether two sets of biometric information match, can be reasonably performed in the human mind. That the biometric information is stored in an anchor token provides only a general link to the technological environment without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or providing significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 9 and 17: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2 and the method of claim 10, wherein the blockchain is a private blockchain exclusive to the organization; and wherein the digital recognition badge is awarded to the owner on a conditional basis and is deactivatable. These claims elaborate on the abstract idea in the same manner as claims 7 and 15, while the blockchain provides only a general link to the technological environment much like the independent claims. There are no new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 19: The distributed system of claim 18, wherein the digital recognition badge exclusively operates on a platform running on a trusted execution environment (TEE); and wherein the platform is at least one selected from the group consisting of a social media platform, a gaming platform, and a subscription service platform. Claim 19 combines aspects of claims 11 and 12 and is ineligible for the same reasons provided above.
Regarding Claim 20: The distributed system of claim 18, wherein the digital recognition badge, when stored in the digital wallet of the owner, provides at least one access right to contents in the digital wallet to the organization; wherein the at least one access right is used to analyze the contents in the digital wallet to determine whether to award at least one additional digital recognition badge; and wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the digital recognition badge and the at least one additional digital recognition badge is awarded in response to a determined accomplishment by the owner. Claim 20 combines aspects of claims 13–15 and is ineligible for the same reasons provided above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sliwka (US20210082044A1) in view of Mercury (US20190087781A1) and in further view of Anderson (US20210287770A1).
Regarding Claim 2. Sliwka -which like the current invention is directed to tying a blockchain token to a particular owner using wallet, public key, and ownership verification mechanisms- teaches:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium containing bytecode stored within an immutable ledger, wherein the bytecode encodes an anchor token;
Sliwka - The process of deploying the smart contract may include compiling the program code into bytecode, object code, binary code, or some other executable form (¶ 0059). the token generation system 302 may generate a unique identifier for each respective token…the resultant digital signature may be used as the token identifier… the token generation system 302 may generate a token wrapper that includes the token identifier (¶ 0121).
wherein the anchor token: is a particular token that is inextricably tied to an owner of a digital recognition badge; and
Sliwka – the verification system 306 may be configured to verify the ownership of a token (¶ 0131). The ledger management system 104 may deny the combination if the token is not a valid token and/or the user is not the listed owner of the token. The ledger management system 104 may verify the token/public address combination if the token is deemed valid and the requesting user is deemed to be the owner of the token (¶ 0141).
comprises: a unique identifier specific to the owner of the digital recognition badge; and
Sliwka - the token generation system 302 may generate a unique identifier for each respective token…the resultant digital signature may be used as the token identifier(¶ 0121).
a reference to a public key of a digital wallet of the owner; and
Sliwka - the public address of the user attempting to redeem the token (¶ 0141). the digital wallet may also transmit a transfer request to the token transfer system 402 indicating that the transferring user has requested to transfer the token. The transfer request may include a copy of the token and a public address of the transferring user (¶ 0145).
Sliwka does not teach, however Mercury – which like the current invention is directed to digital badges and credentials issued by an organization and implemented with blockchain technology- discloses:
wherein the digital recognition badge: is awarded, through a blockchain, to the owner by an organization to which the owner belongs; and
Mercury - systems associated associates with employers or other organizations (who may access the blockchain to add and track the badges of their associated employees/members) (¶ 0185).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka with the blockchain badge system of Mercury because doing so issues a user specific digital badge to track the badges of their members through a blockchain.
The combination of Sliwka and Mercury does not disclose, however Anderson – which like the current invention is directed to issuer digital credentials, wallet-based storage, and verification that the credential belongs to the correct user - discloses:
performs at least one personalized functionality depending on a confirmation of the unique identifier.
Anderson - Upon verifying the authenticity of the user identification information, the issuer client performs a data binding step by retrieving information of the user, e.g., medical record, from a data system of the issuer, e.g., an electronic medical record system, by mapping the verified user identification into the data system. The issuer client assembles the retrieved information into a credential template having a standardized data structure and format and provides the assembled credential information to the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11. The combination of Sliwka, Mercury, and Anderson further discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2 and the method of claim 10, wherein the digital recognition badge exclusively operates on a platform running on a trusted execution environment (TEE).
Anderson - the issuer client establishes a trusted, private, and cryptographically secured connection with the wallet application of the user through an agent, e.g., a cloud-based agent, and provides the credential information to the wallet application via the private connection. For example, when the issuer client registers the wallet application with the cloud-based agent for the private connection, a pair of cryptographic keys “communication key pair” are generated or identified for the secured communication between the cloud-based agent and the wallet application (¶ 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12. The combination of Sliwka, Mercury, and Anderson further discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 3 and the method of claim 11, wherein the platform is at least one selected from the group consisting of a social media platform, a gaming platform, and a subscription service platform.
Sliwka - the rewards system may reward users with tokens to redeem items when the users are deemed to have shared the most virtual items on the social media platforms. In another example, the rewards system may issue rewards (e.g., tokens to certain items) to a user when the user purchases a certain value or amount of virtual items… the gamification system may provide an environment where users are challenged to compete (¶ 0103).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13. The combination of Sliwka, Mercury, and Anderson further discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2 and the method of claim 10, wherein the digital recognition badge, when stored in the digital wallet of the owner, provides at least one access right to contents in the digital wallet to the organization.
Sliwka - the digital wallet stores any tokens that are owned by the user associated with the digital wallet and provides an interface that allows the user to redeem, transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise participate in transactions involving the token (¶ 0078).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14. The combination of Sliwka, Mercury, and Anderson further discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 5 and the method of claim 13, wherein the at least one access right is used to analyze the contents in the digital wallet to determine whether to award at least one additional digital recognition badge.
Mercury - for each employee in the first set of employees, accessing a server computer hosting a digital credential repository to identify a plurality of digital credentials associated with the employee (Claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15. The combination of Sliwka, Mercury, and Anderson further discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6 and the method of claim 14, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the digital recognition badge and the at least one additional digital recognition badge is awarded in response to a determined accomplishment by the owner.
Mercury - certain institutions may issue digital credentials (or digital badges) to qualifying individuals, and these digital credential earners may use the digital credentials to certify the skills or qualifications that the earner obtained vis-à-vis the institution (¶ 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Regarding Claims 8, 16, and 21. The combination of Sliwka, Mercury, and Anderson further discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2 , the method of claim 10 and the distributed system of claim 18, wherein the anchor token further comprises a biometric template corresponding to the owner; and wherein a given functionality of the at least one personalized functionality is implemented in response to a biometric authentication based on the biometric template.
Mercury - biometric authentication during in-person testing (e.g., formal written testing, live simulation or VR/AR simulation, etc.), photo identification and/or signature provided during in-person testing, DNA provided during in-person testing, facial recognition during in-person testing, retinal scan during in-person testing, etc.) (¶ 0199).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Regarding Claims 9 and 17. The combination of Sliwka, Mercury, and Anderson further discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2 and the method of claim 10, wherein the blockchain is a private blockchain exclusive to the organization; and wherein the digital recognition badge is awarded to the owner on a conditional basis and is deactivatable.
Mercury - the current status and recent usage data for their badge skills. Additionally, the employer or potential employer may be permitted to view evidence data and/or the user's authentication process data, to verify that the user actually completed the badge requirements, and also may allow the employer or potential employer to observe the user's behaviors, responses, reactions first-hand, thus allowing them to evaluate the user's reaction time (¶ 0203).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Regarding Claim 10. Sliwka teaches:
and encoding an anchor token,
Sliwka - the token generation system 302 may generate a unique identifier for each respective token…the resultant digital signature may be used as the token identifier… the token generation system 302 may generate a token wrapper that includes the token identifier (¶ 0121).
wherein the anchor token: is a particular token that is inextricably tied to the owner of the digital recognition badge; and comprises:
Sliwka – the verification system 306 may be configured to verify the ownership of a token (¶ 0131). The ledger management system 104 may deny the combination if the token is not a valid token and/or the user is not the listed owner of the token. The ledger management system 104 may verify the token/public address combination if the token is deemed valid and the requesting user is deemed to be the owner of the token (¶ 0141).
a unique identifier specific to the owner of the digital recognition badge;
Sliwka - the token generation system 302 may generate a unique identifier for each respective token…the resultant digital signature may be used as the token identifier(¶ 0121).
and a reference to a public key of a digital wallet of the owner;
Sliwka- the public address of the user attempting to redeem the token (¶ 0141). the digital wallet may also transmit a transfer request to the token transfer system 402 indicating that the transferring user has requested to transfer the token. The transfer request may include a copy of the token and a public address of the transferring user (¶ 0145).
Sliwka does not teach, however Mercury discloses:
A method for implementing digital access rights, comprising: awarding a digital recognition badge to an owner using a blockchain,
Mercury - the various badging and/or digital credentialing systems described herein may be implemented using blockchain technology…a distributed network of badge owners, badge issuers, badge earners, and others may collaborate via a badging network to verify and maintain a badge blockchain (¶ 0184). a new badge issued by a particular issuer to a particular earner (¶ 0189).
wherein the digital recognition badge is awarded by an organization to which the owner belongs;
Mercury - systems associated associates with employers or other organizations (who may access the blockchain to add and track the badges of their associated employees/members) (¶ 0185).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka with the blockchain badge system of Mercury because doing so issues a user specific digital badge to track the badges of their members through a blockchain.
The combination of Sliwka and Mercury does not teach, however Anderson discloses:
and performing at least one personalized functionality using the digital recognition badge,
Anderson - the credential becomes portable for the user to the extent that the user can digitally present the credential to a client of a verifier…a private, trusted, and cryptographically secured connection can be established between the wallet application of the user and the verifier client (¶ 0027).
wherein performing the at least one personalized functionality comprises confirming the unique identifier.
Anderson - Upon verifying the authenticity of the user identification information, the issuer client performs a data binding step by retrieving information of the user, e.g., medical record, from a data system of the issuer, e.g., an electronic medical record system, by mapping the verified user identification into the data system. The issuer client assembles the retrieved information into a credential template having a standardized data structure and format and provides the assembled credential information to the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Regarding Claim 18. Sliwka teaches:
encode an anchor token,
Sliwka - the token generation system 302 may generate a unique identifier for each respective token…the resultant digital signature may be used as the token identifier… the token generation system 302 may generate a token wrapper that includes the token identifier (¶ 0121).
wherein the anchor token: is a particular token that is inextricably tied to the owner of the digital recognition badge; and
Sliwka – the verification system 306 may be configured to verify the ownership of a token (¶ 0131). The ledger management system 104 may deny the combination if the token is not a valid token and/or the user is not the listed owner of the token. The ledger management system 104 may verify the token/public address combination if the token is deemed valid and the requesting user is deemed to be the owner of the token (¶ 0141).
comprises: a unique identifier specific to the owner of the digital recognition badge; and a
Sliwka - the token generation system 302 may generate a unique identifier for each respective token…the resultant digital signature may be used as the token identifier(¶ 0121).
reference to a public key of a digital wallet of the owner; and
Sliwka - the public address of the user attempting to redeem the token (¶ 0141). the digital wallet may also transmit a transfer request to the token transfer system 402 indicating that the transferring user has requested to transfer the token. The transfer request may include a copy of the token and a public address of the transferring user (¶ 0145).
Sliwka does not teach, however Mercury discloses:
A distributed system for implementing digital access rights, the distributed system comprising: at least one network interface;
Mercury - network interfaces (¶ 0052). FIGS. 30A and 30B are screenshots depicting example of different user interface views for displaying a user's badge resume (¶ 0033).
a user interface;
Mercury - network interfaces (¶ 0052). FIGS. 30A and 30B are screenshots depicting example of different user interface views for displaying a user's badge resume (¶ 0033).
memory storing instructions; and
Mercury - program instructions, such as system memory 518 and computer-readable storage media 516. The system memory 518 and/or computer-readable storage media 516 may store program instructions that are loadable and executable on processing units 504, as well as data generated during the execution of these programs (¶ 0095).
at least one processor configured to communicate data with the at least one network interface, the user interface and the memory, the processor further configured to execute the instructions to:
Mercury - One or more processors, including single core and/or multicore processors, may be included in processing unit 504 (¶ 0090).
award a digital recognition badge to an owner, using a blockchain accessed through the at least one network interface, wherein the digital recognition badge is awarded by an organization to which the owner belongs; and
Mercury - systems associated associates with employers or other organizations (who may access the blockchain to add and track the badges of their associated employees/members) (¶ 0185).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka with the blockchain badge system of Mercury because doing so issues a user specific digital badge to track the badges of their members through a blockchain.
perform at least one personalized functionality using the digital recognition badge through the user interface,
The combination of Sliwka and Mercury does not discloses, however Anderson discloses:
Anderson - the credential becomes portable for the user to the extent that the user can digitally present the credential to a client of a verifier…a private, trusted, and cryptographically secured connection can be established between the wallet application of the user and the verifier client (¶ 0027).
wherein performing the at least one personalized functionality comprises confirming the unique identifier.
Anderson - Upon verifying the authenticity of the user identification information, the issuer client performs a data binding step by retrieving information of the user, e.g., medical record, from a data system of the issuer, e.g., an electronic medical record system, by mapping the verified user identification into the data system. The issuer client assembles the retrieved information into a credential template having a standardized data structure and format and provides the assembled credential information to the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Regarding Claim 19. The combination of Sliwka, Mercury, and Anderson further discloses:
The distributed system of claim 18, wherein the digital recognition badge exclusively operates on a platform running on a trusted execution environment (TEE); and wherein the platform is at least one selected from the group consisting of a social media platform, a gaming platform, and a subscription service platform.
Anderson - the issuer client establishes a trusted, private, and cryptographically secured connection with the wallet application of the user through an agent, e.g., a cloud-based agent, and provides the credential information to the wallet application via the private connection. For example, when the issuer client registers the wallet application with the cloud-based agent for the private connection, a pair of cryptographic keys “communication key pair” are generated or identified for the secured communication between the cloud-based agent and the wallet application (¶ 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Regarding Claim 20. The combination of Sliwka, Mercury, and Anderson further discloses:
The distributed system of claim 18, wherein the digital recognition badge, when stored in the digital wallet of the owner, provides at least one access right to contents in the digital wallet to the organization; wherein the at least one access right is used to analyze the contents in the digital wallet to determine whether to award at least one additional digital recognition badge; and wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the digital recognition badge and the at least one additional digital recognition badge is awarded in response to a determined accomplishment by the owner.
Mercury - Techniques relate to managing digital credentials. An employee records database is accessed to identify a plurality of employees. Within the plurality of employees, a first set of employees is identified. For each employee in the first set of employees, a server computer hosting a digital credential repository is accessed to identify a plurality of digital credentials associated with the employee. The plurality of digital credentials of each employee in the first set of employees are analyzed to generate a statistical analysis of the plurality of digital credentials. With the statistical analysis complete, data identifying the statistical analysis is transmitted to a user device (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token architecture of Sliwka and the blockchain badge system of Mercury with the credential wallet verification of Anderson because doing so yields the predictable known blockchain credentialing and identity verification techniques to improve integrity, portability, and security of digital recognition badges.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Filter (US20220076331A1) - A method includes initiating, by a first computing device, an interaction with a second computing device. The first computing device includes a first digital asset unit and the second computing device includes a second digital asset unit. The first digital asset unit stores assignable tokens. The method further includes determining to assign conditional access rights to an amount of the assignable tokens to the second digital asset unit where the conditional access rights are in accordance with a set of conditions. The assignment of conditional access rights is a self-enforcing smart contract embedded in an assignable token distributed ledger technology. The method further includes locking the amount of the assignable tokens stored in the first digital asset unit and providing the conditional access rights to the amount of the assignable tokens to second digital asset unit. The second digital asset unit does not store the amount of the assignable tokens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA C STEVENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday to 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick , can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/C.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698