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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-8, 10, 14-15, and 17-20 are cancelled.
Claim 9 being independent, has also been amended,
Claims 11-13 and 16 being dependent claims.
Claims 9, 11-13 & 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A – Prong 1 (Judicial Exception)?
Applicant argues that, when viewed as a whole, the amended claim is not directed to an abstract idea because it incorporates specific technological features including an edge extended reality (XR) device for immersive remote data collection, quantum key distribution (QKD) encoding of biological fingerprints, generative AI for creating synthetic fingerprints, systematic iterative dataset generation for pattern-based verification, and blockchain-based smart contract generation with embedded metadata and real-time rule mapping. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. These recited features are presented as tools used to perform and support the underlying notarization/contract generation workflow, and do not change the focus of the claim from the organizing, verifying, and validating of a legal/commercial transaction, which is a form of organizing human activity and managing interpersonal/legal interactions.
Applicant further argues that the claim is distinguishable from buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) because the amended claim recites an ordered combination of steps leveraging advanced technologies to solve problems unique to electronic environments (e.g., vulnerability to tampering, remote user verification, and dynamic compliance with location-specific rules). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As in buySAFE, the claim is directed to establishing trust/verification for a transaction using computing technology. The recited technologies are invoked at a high level of generality to perform their expected roles (e.g., identity verification, security, rule checking, and recording/contract enforcement), and the claim remains directed to the abstract concept of validating and executing transactions and compliance requirements, rather than to a specific technological improvement to computer functionality.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2 (Integration into a Practical Application)?
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they use an edge extended reality (XR) device to enable immersive remote notarization. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The XR device is used merely as a generic user interface for presenting information and receiving user input, without improving the operation of the XR device itself or solving a problem specific to extended reality technology. The abstract idea is simply performed in a different presentation environment.
Applicant further argues that the use of quantum key distribution encoding and generative AI for synthetic fingerprints integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by improving security. However, the claims do not recite how QKD or AI are implemented in a non-conventional manner or how they improve computer or network functionality. Instead, these elements are used for their expected purpose of securing and analyzing data, which constitutes applying the abstract idea using generic technology.
Applicant further asserts that the creation of systematic, iterative rational datasets for verification integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely analyze and compare data to determine compliance or authenticity, which is insufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–54.
Applicant further argues that blockchain smart contract generation with embedded metadata and real-time rule mapping integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and is analogous to improvements recognized in Enfish and McRO, and is also similar to USPTO Eligibility Example 42, while being distinguishable from Electric Power Group. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in USPTO Example 42, using blockchain to record, verify, or enforce contractual relationships is not, by itself, an integration into a practical application where the claim does not improve blockchain technology (or another computer technology) itself; rather, it is using blockchain as a recordkeeping/validation mechanism for legal transactions. Further, the claims here are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality of the type in Enfish (e.g., a specific self-referential table improving database operation) nor to a specific rules-based technological solution like McRO (e.g., particularized rule sets improving automated animation). Instead, the claims apply known technologies (distributed ledger recordation, metadata embedding, and rule checking/mapping) to perform and enforce compliance/contract validity in a legal process. To the extent the “real-time rule mapping” involves analyzing rules and mapping them to data/documents for validation, that is consistent with evaluation of information to reach a compliance determination and remains insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept)?
Applicant argues that the combination of XR devices, QKD encoding, generative AI, iterative datasets, and blockchain smart contracts is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each element is individually conventional, and their combination reflects the expected use of known technologies to automate notarization and contract execution.
Applicant has not demonstrated that the elements are arranged in a non-conventional manner or that their interaction produces a technical effect beyond automating a legal process. The claims do not recite specific technical mechanisms, algorithms, or architectures that would amount to an inventive concept. Instead, they merely combine known technologies to perform their ordinary functions in support of an abstract idea.
Accordingly, when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite significantly more under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the rejection of claims 9, 11–13, and 16 under § 101 is maintained.
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 9, 11-13 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 9-16 are directed towards a process for notarization and contract generation.
When considering independent claim 9 without the additional elements, the claim recites:
collecting one or more documents associated with an electronic notarization, provide the user, from a remote location, with an extended immersive environment for an on-premise experience;
scanning one or more biological fingerprint images from the user wherein the one or more scanned biological fingerprint images of the user are encoded with quantum key distribution to enhance the security;
receiving synthetic fingerprint information, wherein the synthetic fingerprint information resemble actual fingerprints of the user and is generated based on one or more scanned biological fingerprint images of the user and using a generative artificial intelligence algorithm;
receive the one or more documents associated with the notarization;
receive rule information corresponding to location specific protocols associated with the notarization;
creating systematic and iterative rational datasets based on user input data, and identifying an underlying pattern of data to generate a new dataset to ensure verification of the one more documents associated with the electronic notarization; and
generate a contract based on the synthetic fingerprint information, the one or more notarized documents, and the rule information, and wherein generating the smart contract comprises embedding the synthetic fingerprint information with the one or more digital documents to create tamperproof metadata, and wherein retrieving the rule information corresponding to location specific protocols further comprises:
identifying state-specific laws, regulations, and procedural compliance rules from a distributed data source in real time, and
mapping the rules against the embedded metadata and the one or more digital documents associated with the electronic notarization for validation prior to generating the smart contract, and provide access to and maintain the generated smart contract.
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of notarization and contract generation. Therefore, the claim is a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to a “commercial or legal interaction” (i.e. marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and “concepts performed in a human mind” relating to “mental processes” (i.e. including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements of “extended reality capable device”, “fingerprint sensor” and “computing device” are recited at a high level of generality i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computing functions. These additional elements describe how to generally “apply” the judicial exception in a computer environment to automate a business process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer technology, is not a practical application of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The claim does not include additional elements individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components i.e., computing processor.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, receiving data is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer function. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims 11-13 and 16 further narrow the abstract idea and do not provide any additional elements individually or in combination that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims merely recite extra-solution activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the realm of transfers of smart contracts. The additional elements i.e. extended reality capable device, are merely invoked as tools. For the above reasons, claims 11-13 and 16 are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696