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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 229-248 were previously pending consideration. Per the received amendment received on May 15, 2026 claims 229-248 have been cancelled and claims 249-265 have been newly added.
2. Claims 249-265 are currently pending consideration.
Response to Arguments
3. The Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejections set forth. However, there are 112 issues that still persist. The Applicant argues that the original filing has the same words and terminologies as the original filing. The issue persists that even if the present set of claims contain many of the same terms as the original filing, those original terms would be mostly present in the claims as the original specification was only three pages long. Therefore, many issues such as enablement would present themselves as many of the terms and limitations lack the proper definition or enablement in the original filing. The Applicant states (on page 2 of Remarks) that dynamic chainlinks, processor-gene hybrid-created hybridizations have all been removed from the new claims. The Applicant repeats many of the Examiner’s rejections but does not provide a sufficient response. In response to numerous 112 rejections which Applicant restated (See Remarks: pages 3-4), the Applicant responds with Claim 253, 254, and 261, the abiotic intelligence-rendered omnipotence and omnipresence: the processors-specific relational profile data in networked repositories-linking-gene-created diagnoses-specific chief complains, symptoms, signs, treatments and laboratory tests, based on the actual chronological expression of each disease or each disorder in patients. This argument does not address any of the 112s and is not persuasive.
The Applicant’s amendment suffers from many of the same issues of the past submissions including grammatical issues, disclosure issues, and 112 issues of clarity. The clarity of the claims has improved but many of the issues are difficult to overcome with amendments as the original specification was only three pages and the original filing of the claims may not be enough to overcome the enablement issues that are persistent. The Examiner has provided a sample claim for the Applicant. The main problem which has persisted throughout prosecution is that the Original Disclosure, filed on January 29, 2018, was written in an overbroad and general manner and does not contain the specificity to demonstrate the full scope of the claimed invention. The original specification was only three pages long, and though the original claim set was lengthy, it was not written in a way to enable many aspects of the current claimed invention.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 249-265 are objected to because of the following informalities:
5. The claims are still written in a convoluted manner which renders the claims difficult to understand. The system claims should be written in a clear manner with each limitation outling a component or element of the system and the task that element is responsible. The Applicant should review cited patents for examples of claim construction.
6. Claim 249 contains a preamble is written in a grammatically incorrect manner.
7. Claim 249, in the first line, states an abiotic intelligence-networked servers, smartphones, laptops and desktops” and then states in the last line of the preamble “and the abiotic intelligence, collectively known herein as AIR Pay.” It is unclear what AIR Pay is supposed to encompass.
8. The claims disclose “-edited, -adapted” and many other terms with a hyphen in front of the word.
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.
9. Claims 249-265 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited in previous Office Actions.
10. Claims 249-265 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
11. Claim 249 discloses that “processor-units-genes hybrid created hybriziations.” It is unclear from the claims or specification what is being adapted and what is meant by “common genes-created digital diagnosis-specific snippets” or “processor units-genes-hybrid-created logistics.” The claims do not describe a working system in a clear manner. The same problem arises in all the claims.
12. Claim 249 discusses a thesaurus module for instructing processor units for translating terminologies into laypeople’s English and non-English words. It is unclear how this is being achieved based on the original and new disclosures. The mere recitation of a program is not enough to allow the claim to be enabled when it is performing a task.
13. The claims should allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is being claimed. The claims are still being written in an unclear manner. If a system is being claimed, then the elements of the system should be clearly claimed along with their relation to one another. If a method is being claimed, then the steps should be clearly delineated.
14. Claims 249-265 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
15. Claim 249 discloses “hybrid-created hybridizations.” Hybridizations were not defined in the original disclosure nor in the newly amended specification in a sufficient manner. Applicant is invited to define what is meant by hybrid-created hybridizations.
16. Claim 249 discusses a thesaurus module for instructing processor units for translating terminologies into laypeople’s English and non-English words. It is unclear how this is being achieved based on the original and new disclosures. The mere recitation of a program is not enough to allow the claim to be enabled when it is performing a task.
17. Claim 249 describes a system that generates “networked repositories for generating, streaming and near-field technologies sharing realtime digital ledgers for precisely and accurately focusing and safeguarding physical movements, locations and transactions of commodities and services including comparative values, prices or costs, associating with each grouping of same diagnosis-specific snippets.” The claims do not delineate how any of these functions are achieved. Further, the specification does not disclose how the system performs any of these tasks set forth in the claims. There is multiple more instances of enablement problems, but for sake of brevity, only the above have been provided. The claim is replete with multiple instances of problems that will be solved but does not provide specifics on functions which will achieve these results.
If the Applicant needs further guidance, the Applicant may call the Examiner for further explanation.
18. Claim 249 recites the limitation "the unique keys” and the “foreign keys” in step (b1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner is providing a sample patent claim for the Applicant for informational purposes.
SAMPLE CLAIM
CLAIM 266:
A system comprising:
a plurality of networked repositories, each networked repository including a processor and a memory storing a relational database;
wherein the relational database stores:
a relational profile data including biometrics data and device identification data associated with a user;
chronologically ordered health and healthcare data comprising diagnosis-specific data; and
commodities and services data including values, prices and costs;
wherein the relational database further stores a plurality of digital diagnosis-specific snippets, each digital diagnosis-specific snippet comprising a set of relational records that link the relational profile data, the chronologically ordered health and healthcare data, and the commodities and services data by using unique keys and foreign keys;
the processor being configured to:
compile, from the digital diagnosis-specific snippets, a compilation of relations for an individual networked repository and for a group of networked repositories based on a common diagnosis-specific relation;
generate, from the compilation of relations, a repository-specific digital ledger that records financial transactions for commodities or services in a national currency or a digital currency;
render, on a display of a networked communication device, an interactive comparative values-prices-costs ledger and an associated statistical graph based on the recorded financial transactions; and
update at least one value, price or cost of a commodity or service in the relational database based on the statistical analysis of the recorded financial transactions.
RELEVANT CITED ART
Note: These references are relevant to the claimed invention
Frieder et al. (U.S. 2017/0365183): System translates medical terminologies into more understandable terms (paragraph 0057, 0060).
Ramarajan et al. (U.S. 2012/0016690): The reporting process requires a translation of medical terminologies into an easily understandable report for patients (paragraph 0192).
Dvorak et al. (U.S. 2010/0070306): The data may be subject to translation from medical terminology to conventional English to improve its accessibility to the layperson (paragraph 0031).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR/
07/14/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights