DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s amendments filed on September 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 13, 14, 21, 27, and 28.
Applicant added claims 30 and 31.
While Applicant has stated in their response they have not cancelled any claims. Claims 18 and 19 are marked as labeled as cancelled. Previously these claims had a status of “Non-elected”. Examiner will consider these claims officially cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11-15, and 21-31 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11-15, and 21-29 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims recite a practical application by improving technology; that allowing a blockchain to operate in a centralized manner. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims, in their current form, do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (modifying conditions associated with an item) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. It is not a technical solution to perform the claims in a centralized manner. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. While Applicant argues that the claims improve how a blockchain functions; nothing in the claims limits the scope of the claims to a blockchain environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is they are applicable in any type of computing environment and the claims would therefore not address a technical issue associated with any type of computing environment (note: this issue cannot be overcome simply by adding “in a blockchain” to the claims). Additionally, merely claiming the claims are performed in a centralized manner is not the same as actually claiming what steps/limitations are actually performed in order to accomplish this. Essentially, Applicant is claiming the end result without claiming how that end result is accomplished.
Applicant claimed its claims are similar to those in Ancora, BASCOM, and Example 35. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. While Applicant states language from the cases, there is no analysis as to how its claims are similar. Applicant merely alleges similarity. For example, in BASCOM it was the specific combination, filtering at a specific location which amounted to significantly more. Applicant’s claims do not contain similar subject matter where conventional activities are being performed in an unconventional manner, such as the filtering in BASCOM. Applicant is merely alleging the claims are similar to BASCOM and have an unconventional combination of limitations. Applicant has not expressed which limitations in combination with each other amount to significantly more or how their combination results in significantly more (similar to how the filtering in BASCOM was improved by filtering server side).
Applicant argued that its claims are similar to those in Ancora. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims are not similar to those in these case. Ancora addresses specific security features. Applicant’s claims are not similar in the way that actually amounts to eligible subject matter. It is not sufficient that the claims describe interactions between devices or that the claims occur in the context of the internet. Applicant’s claims takes a generic/abstract verification process and utilizes the existing technology of cryptography as a tool for its intended purpose. Applicant’s claims merely creates, stores, and compares identifiers for security purposes. Applicant merely utilizes cryptography as a tool rather than improve technology. This merely linked the judicial exception to a generic computing environment.
In example 35, random code data was transmitted, encrypted, and displayed on the customer' s mobile device such that the ATM read the corresponding image, decrypted the image, and analyzed the decrypted data to verify the customer identity. In this case, the combination of steps set up a sequence of events that address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or “skimmed” bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). Thus, like in BASCOM, the claimed combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea. Further, the combination of obtaining information from the mobile communication device (instead of the ATM keypad) and using the image (instead of a PIN) to verify the customer' s identity by matching identification information does not merely select information by content or source, in contrast to Electric Power, but instead describes a process that differs from the routine and conventional sequence of events normally conducted by ATM verification, such as entering a PIN, similar to the unconventional sequence of events in DDR. The additional elements in claim 2 thus represent significantly more (i.e., provide an inventive concept) because they are a practical implementation of the abstract idea of fraud prevention that performs identity verification in a non‐conventional and non‐generic way, even though the steps use well‐known components (a processor and mobile communication device). Claim 2 is eligible (Step 2B: Yes). In the instant case, the claims are attempting to solve a business problem using conventional computer functions. There is no unique problem associated with any technological environment or field of use that is being solved as was the case for Example 35. The instant claims are not analogous to Example 35.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 1, 2, 4, 8, 11-15, and 21-31 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.
Regarding claims 1, 21, and 30; these claims are indefinite for the following reason:
The term “in a centralized manner” is indefinite. The scope of the this limitation is so broad that the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. As opposed to defining what the term means through functional language (e.g., by performing steps A, B, and C) the claim merely states an end-goal it wishes to obtain. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, almost any characteristic of a centralized system that the claims also perform could be considered performing in a centralized manner. Is sending/receiving data to/from a centralized node sufficient to satisfy the limitation or is something more robust required (e.g., bypassing the consensus system to make changes to the blockchain). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what is meant by this limitations. Thus the claims are indefinite.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 11-15, 22-29 and 31 are rejected due to their dependence on independent claims 1, 21, and 30.
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, 2, 4, 8, 11-15, and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as generating/modifying records.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a machine (claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11-15), method (claims 21-29), and product (claims 30 and 31).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 21, and 30 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
modify a conditional item,
accessing a conditional item,
the conditional item comprising: a first set of data, comprising:
first content, that is inaccessible by an account;
and a first policy, identifying at least one first condition,
wherein each first condition of the at least one first condition is satisfied based on an occurrence of an event detected;
and a second set of data, comprising second content, that is accessible by the account;
deriving a confirmation that the occurrence of the event satisfies a first condition of the at least one first condition;
and in direct response to the confirmation being derived to establish that the first condition of the at least one first condition is satisfied, performing an evolution to the conditional item,
wherein the evolution: is performed in a centralized manner;
and converts the first content to become accessible by the account through automatically modifying the first policy.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice (risk mitigation) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of executable code, at least one sensor, a device, a network interface, memory, instructions; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of executable code, at least one sensor, a device, a network interface, memory, instructions; amount to no more than mere components to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0178], [0193], [0219], [0322-0325] about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 2, 4, 11, 12, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 and 29 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 21. Therefore, claims 2, 4, 11, 12, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 and 29 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 8, 13, 15, 24, 27, 29 and 31 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 21. In addition, they recite the additional elements of a public-key, private-key encryption, a cryptographic system. The encryption is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 8, 13, 15, 24, 27, 29, and 31 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 11-15, 22-29 and 31 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
Applicant has amended their claims. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
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 extension fee 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 MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 12/23/2025