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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 ----6/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Independent Claim 1 discloses a method for managing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) data utilizing tokens, comprising: obtaining DNA data associated with a user, the DNA data is stored in a DNA profile associated with the user by a data platform including at least a processor and a memory and in communication with a DNA system that sequences DNA, the DNA profile is encrypted and accessible only via user authentication; tokenizing the DNA data into one or more tokens, each of the one or more tokens including a token identifier associated with the DNA data utilizing the data platform, wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the DNA data; storing the one or more tokens in a distributed ledger to ensure secure and traceable access of the DNA data, user consent, and transactions; and monetizing the DNA data by facilitating smart contract-enabled transactions on the data platform for the one or more tokens, wherein the smart contract is configured to access the user preferences set forth in the DNA profile to verify approval from the user for the transactions and wherein the monetization is performed according to the DNA profile and the smart contract.
Independent Claim 11 discloses a system for managing DNA data, comprising: a DNA system for determining DNA data associated with a user, a DNA profile is associated with the user; a plurality of electronic devices executing a data application, the data application is configured to capture the information associated with the user; and a data platform in communication with the DNA system and accessible by the plurality of electronic devices executing the data application through one or more networks, wherein the data platform tokenizes the DNA data stored in the DNA profile into one or more tokens, each of the one or more tokens including an identifier associated with the DNA data, wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the DNA data, and monetizes the DNA data, by facilitating smart contract-enabled transactions, wherein the smart contract is configured to access the user preferences set forth in the DNA profile and to authorize the smart contract enabled transactions based on the user preferences, and wherein the monetization is performed according to user preferences set forth in the DNA profile and the smart contract.
Independent Claim 16 discloses a data platform, comprising: a processor for executing a set of instructions; a memory for storing the set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions are executed to: establishing a DNA profile associated with a user, wherein the DNA profile is encrypted and accessible only via user authentication, determine information associated with the user; obtain DNA data associated with the user, the information and the DNA data is stored in the DNA profile associated with the user by a data platform; deidentify the DNA profile so that the user is not identifiable through the information or the DNA data; tokenize the DNA data into one or more tokens wherein each of the one or more tokens includes an identifier associated with the DNA data, comprises metadata referencing a storage location of the DNA data and serves as a secure access mechanism for the DNA data; and monetize the DNA data by facilitating smart contract-enabled transactions, wherein the smart contract is configured to access the user preferences set forth in the DNA profile to verify approval from the user for the transactions, and wherein the monetization is performed according to the DNA profile and the smart contract.
The examiner is interpreting the above bolded limitations as additional elements as further discussed below. The remaining un-bolded limitations are merely directed to obtaining information and DNA data from a user, deidentifying it, and allowing a user to sell their deidentified data based on their consent. The series of steps recited above describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and thus are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Independent Claim 1 discloses the following additional elements:
A data platform including at least a processor and a memory in communication with a DNA system that sequences DNA
DNA profile encrypted and accessible only via user authentication
wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the DNA data
A distributed ledger
Smart contract-enabled transactions on the data platform for the one or more tokens
Independent Claim 11 discloses the following additional elements:
A DNA system
A plurality of electronic devices executing a data application
A data platform in communication with the DNA system
One or more networks
wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the DNA data
Smart contract-enabled transactions
Independent Claim 16 discloses the following additional elements:
A data platform comprising a processor for executing a set of instructions and a memory for storing the set of instructions
DNA profile encrypted and accessible only via user authentication
wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the DNA data
Smart contract-enabled transactions
In particular, the data platform in communication with the DNA system comprising a processor for executing a set of instructions and a memory for storing the set of instructions (of claims 1, 11 and 16), the DNA profile that is encrypted and accessible only via user authentication (of claims 1 and 16), distributed ledger (of claim 1), the plurality of electronic devices executing a data application, the one or more networks (of claim 11), wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the DNA data (of claims 1, 11, and 16), and the smart contract-enabled transactions (of claim 1, 11, and 16) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
Applicant’s specification page 23, lines 23-30 discloses “the processor is circuitry or logic enabled to control execution of a program, application, operating system, macro, kernel, or other set of instructions. The processor may be one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors, application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC), central processing units, or other devices suitable for controlling an electronic device including one or more hardware and software elements, executing software, instructions, programs, and applications, converting and processing signals and information, and performing other related tasks,“ and page 30, lines 11-14 discloses, “the application program interface (API) may also be installed on other electronics devices, such as personal computers, tablets, mobile devices (e.g., smart phones, tablets, etc.), gaming devices, streaming devices, virtual reality/augmented reality devices, and so forth.”
Thus, the electronic devices are performing as expected. 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.
Claim 1 and 11 further recite the additional element of the DNA system that sequences DNA (of claim 1) and the DNA system (of claim 11). These additional elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea(s) without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the data platform in communication with the DNA system comprising a processor for executing a set of instructions and a memory for storing the set of instructions (of claims 1, 11 and 16), the DNA profile that is encrypted and accessible only via user authentication (of claims 1 and 16), distributed ledger (of claim 1), the plurality of electronic devices executing a data application, the one or more networks (of claim 11), wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the DNA data (of claims 1, 11, and 16), and the smart contract-enabled transactions (of claim 1, 11, and 16) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the DNA system that sequences DNA (of claim 1) and the DNA system (of claim 11) were considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the ‘significantly more’ analysis and has been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05 (A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (‘significantly more").
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such the independent claims 1, 11, and 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claims 2, 12-13, and 19-20 do further disclose the additional element(s) of blockchain tokens in a distributed ledger (claim 2 and 13), a DNA sequencer (claim 12), blockchain tokens in a digital ledger (claim 19) and a gene sequencer (claim 20).
The blockchain tokens in a distributed ledger (claim 2 and 13), the DNA sequencer (claim 12), blockchain tokens in a digital ledger (claim 19) and the gene sequencer (claim 20) merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements the blockchain tokens in a distributed ledger (claim 2 and 13), the DNA sequencer (claim 12), blockchain tokens in a digital ledger (claim 19) and the gene sequencer (claim 20) were considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the ‘significantly more’ analysis and has been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05 (A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (‘significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (US PG Pub 2019/0304578 A1), in view of Gorski (US PG Pub 2023/0033102 A1) further in view of NPL reference taught by Cryptopedia (Cryptopedia Staff. (2021, September 7). What is tokenization? blockchain token types. Gemini.)) Barrus (JP 2008257720 A), and Eigner (US PG Pub 2017/0277775 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kain discloses:
A method for managing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) data utilizing tokens, comprising:
obtaining DNA data associated with a user….. a data platform including at least a processor and a memory and in communication with a DNA system that sequences DNA, (Para 243 discloses for genetic and other similar types of data, these may be based upon a sample 62 taken from the individual or from any other population accessible to the individual, such as animals, microbes, plants, environments, and so forth. Such samples may be provided to a genetic testing provider 64. In accordance with known technologies, a genetic sequencer 66 may analyze genetic and other biological materials by DNA sequencing. Based upon such sequence data, the sequencer may forward the data to a sequence processor or processing system 68 where individual strands of sequenced information are pieced together to form larger segments, and in certain cases segments representing entire genes, chromosomes, extra chromosomal DNA, RNA, and other biological material of interest. The resulting aligned sequence data 70 is typically stored in one or more files. Para 247 discloses the account portal may communicate again by any suitable network or combination of networks, and may operate based upon, among other things, a shares API 100. As noted below, various approaches, protocols, and processes may be implemented to generate and account for value or shares in the database or databases of the present system. The account portal computer or computers may include one or more interfaces 108 designed to permit interaction with the member computer as well as one or more processors 110 and memory 112. Here again, the memory will typically store various screens and interaction protocols that are implemented by the processor via the interface.)
the DNA profile is… accessible only via user authentication; (Para 30-31 discloses and a portal that permits interaction by the contributing members with the server to access the respective member-specific account data via an account identification feature; wherein the portal is configured to permit access to the respective member-specific account data for a respective contributing member by a requestor via a secure alternative authentication protocol that maintains a de-identified nature of the stored member-specific contributed data of the respective contributing member... the account identification feature comprises a username and password [thus the DNA profile accessible only via user authentication]. Para 108 discloses a system sometimes includes one or more security features designed to prevent inappropriate access to an account identification feature. A central database in the system generally stores de-identified data, dis-aggregated data, and features associated with an account. Para 175 discloses contributed data database: a databased that contains de-identified and/or encrypted data contributed by members; the data of the contributed data database may be any type of data mentioned above, for example.
monetizing the DNA data by facilitating smart contract-enabled transactions on the data platform.., (Para 88 discloses the database will earn money through the sale of access to its de-identified pooled data, metadata, and research findings by the system and its members to third party partners in the research and medical industry and by supporting clinical trial activities such as recruitment, data monitoring, and post-trial recontact. Para 267 discloses when a member creates an account certain data is exchanged, and in particular, the member may create their digital credentials and explicitly accept an informed consent for population level research… The creation of a user identity is performed anonymously via the ledger with an identity that the system hashes to their administrative data. Next, as summarized above, the user is prompted to add data, and when it is supplied, another transaction is posted that a smart contract executes the appropriate transfer of value, and the data passes through QC and is added to the summary databases, as also summarized above. See further: Para 85-85)
wherein the smart contract is configured to access the user preferences set forth in the DNA profile and to authorize the smart contract enabled transactions based on the user preferences, (Para 88 discloses the database will earn money through the sale of access to its de-identified pooled data, metadata, and research findings by the system and its members to third party partners in the research and medical industry and by supporting clinical trial activities such as recruitment, data monitoring, and post-trial recontact. Para 267 discloses when a member creates an account certain data is exchanged, and in particular, the member may create their digital credentials and explicitly accept an informed consent for population level research… The creation of a user identity is performed anonymously via the ledger with an identity that the system hashes to their administrative data. Next, as summarized above, the user is prompted to add data, and when it is supplied, another transaction is posted that a smart contract executes the appropriate transfer of value, and the data passes through QC and is added to the summary databases, as also summarized above. See further: Para 85-85)
and wherein the monetization is performed according to (Para 267 discloses when a member creates an account certain data is exchanged, and in particular, the member may create their digital credentials and explicitly accept an informed consent for population level research. They can opt-out of recontact to ensure that they do not learn something about their genetics that could be alarming. The creation of a user identity is performed anonymously via the ledger with an identity that the system hashes to their administrative data. Next, as summarized above, the user is prompted to add data, and when it is supplied, another transaction is posted that a smart contract executes the appropriate transfer of value [monetization], and the data passes through QC and is added to the summary databases, as also summarized above.)
While Kain discloses the above limitations and “the member population may be thought of in some respects as “users” 16 (but who are or will become contributing members, as distinguished to third party entities who may be interested in the aggregated data and arrange remuneration for access and “use” as discussed below) to the extent that they will interact with the system via served interfaces both to create accounts, to contribute member-specific contributed data, and to manage aspects of their account and data,” (Kain Para 236), it does not fully disclose the following limitations that Gorski discloses:
the DNA data is stored in a DNA profile associated with the user by a data platform (Para 77 discloses prior to fig. 3A, login credentials may be provided. Window 110 is an initial setup page for an individual… other types of personal information may also be included or uploaded including… more granular data including genetic/genomic information related to an individual [storing DNA data in a DNA profile associated with the user].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the individual or individuals from which the data comes from compared to any other given individual (e.g., an individual’s data may be worth more than another individual’s data) (Gorski Para 57).
While the combination of Kain and Gorski disclose the above limitations and Kain further discloses an identifier and secure and traceable access of the DNA data, user consent, and transactions as well as “new data contributors may receive a digital “wallet ID” and a custom cryptocurrency coin, that is designed to represent or track the value of the database asset, every time they contribute additional data. A wide range of genomic and omic data types may be accepted, including for example SNP array data, DNA sequencing data, somatic genome data, methylome data, virome data, pathegenomic data, and microbiome data,” (Kain Para 18), “immutable ledger records transactions including submission of member-specific contributed data and attribution of member-specific value,” (Kain Para 26), “the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions [wherein the user consent is gathered from the eConsent (Kain para 118) and transactions of the DNA data are only allowed if consent is given when the account is created],” (Kain Para 85), “Together, these forces create the ideal time and place to develop a shared, secure, and owner-controlled medical research data platform,” (Kain Para 86), and, “Genomic, clinical, and Personal Health Information (PHI) data are segregated and stored with independent unique keys hashed based on the same unique identifier. The independent hashed keys are decrypted in flight by a centralized tokenization service and joined together in a separate secure database that contains hashed passwords, user ID, and the like,” (Kain Para 266). it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Cryptopedia discloses:
storing the one or more tokens in a distributed ledger to ensure secure and traceable access [of the DNA data, user consent, and transactions] (The “Summary” section discloses in the blockchain ecosystem, tokens are assets that allow information and value to be transferred, stored, and verified in an efficient and secure manner. These crypto tokens can take many forms, and can be programmed with unique characteristics that expand their use cases. The “Security Tokens, Utility Tokens, and Cryptocurrencies” section discloses a token is a representation of a particular asset or utility. Within the context of blockchain technology, tokenization is the process of converting something of value into a digital token that’s usable on a blockchain application. Assets tokenized on the blockchain come in two forms. They can represent tangible assets like gold, real estate, and art, or intangible assets like voting rights, ownership rights, or content licensing. Practically anything can be tokenized if it is considered an asset that can be owned and has value to someone, and can be incorporated into a larger asset market. The “Security tokens” section discloses security tokens embody a particular investment, such as a share in a company, a voting right in a company or other centralized organization, or some tangible or digital thing of value. In addition to serving as a digital representation of an underlying asset or utility, security tokens can be programmed with an inexhaustible array of unique characteristics and ownership rights. The “future of crypto tokenization” section discloses blockchain technology enables any asset or service to be represented and stored on a blockchain, thereby democratizing access to assets while providing an unprecedented level of online transparency and security.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain and the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski with the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia in order to easily trace provenance and transaction history in a way that is cryptographically verifiable (The “Cryptopedia Transparency and Provability” section) and to enable any asset or service to be represented and stored on a blockchain, thereby democratizing access to assets while providing an unprecedented level of online transparency and security (The “future of crypto tokenization” section).
While the combination of Kain, Gorski, and Cryptopedia discloses the above limitations and Kain Para 266 discloses, “Genomic, clinical, and Personal Health Information (PHI) data are segregated and stored with independent unique keys hashed based on the same unique identifier. The independent hashed keys are decrypted in flight by a centralized tokenization service and joined together in a separate secure database that contains hashed passwords, user ID, and the like. Segregation is used to make each of the independent data sources resilient to being compromised; multiple data sources must be compromised before any utility can be recovered from the data,” and thus discloses the DNA data as presented above, it does not clearly define the following limitations that Barrus discloses:
tokenizing the [DNA] data into one or more tokens; (Para 66 discloses as shown in FIG. 8, upon receiving a request to generate a new token, the process can be activated (step 802). A unique identifier for the object associated with the token to be generated may be generated (step 804). The identifier generated at 804 is such that it can be used to identify and access shared data. In one embodiment, the identifier can be calculated as a hash of a random stream of data generated by a random number generator. At 804, a unique identifier may be generated using other techniques. A unique symmetric encryption key for the object associated with the token to be generated is also created (step 806).)
each of the one or more tokens including a token identifier associated with the [DNA] data utilizing the data platform; wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the [DNA] data; (Para 71 discloses each time a user wants to share a new document, the document is encrypted using the encryption key on the token, and then a new document identifier is calculated or generated. The encrypted document is uploaded to the location defined by the new identifier [token identifier and encrypted storage location]. The new identifier is added to the list of document identifiers stored in the identifier metadata [metadata referencing encrypted storage location because the location is defined by the identify] in the token. The identifier in the collection can still be encrypted using the encryption key in the token.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski and the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia with the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus in order to only allow those who have access to a token with the same identifier and encryption key can access the data from the stored location and decrypt the data to securely share data between users (Para 52).
While the combination of Kain, Gorski, Cryptopedia and Barrus discloses the above limitations include the DNA data and the DNA profile as presented above with Kain and Gorski, the combination does not clearly define that the user profile is encrypted as Eigner discloses:
the [DNA] profile is encrypted (Para 28 discloses the user profile may be encrypted and stored remotely in a cloud-based system at a remote server, with portions of the profile stored in separate locations with separate encryption to minimize the risk of unauthorized access to one portion of the information. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski, the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia, and the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus with the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner in order to securely store user data within a user profile and to minimize the risk of unauthorized access to the information and further utilizes separate encryption keys within the user profile in order to “minimize the amount of information which could be disclosed by the unauthorized access to a single encryption key.”
Regarding Claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Kain discloses the DNA data and “new data contributors may receive a digital “wallet ID” and a custom cryptocurrency coin, that is designed to represent or track the value of the database asset, every time they contribute additional data. A wide range of genomic and omic data types may be accepted, including for example SNP array data, DNA sequencing data, somatic genome data, methylome data, virome data, pathegenomic data, and microbiome data,” (Kain Para 18), “immutable ledger records transactions including submission of member-specific contributed data and attribution of member-specific value,” (Kain Para 26), “the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions [wherein the user consent is gathered from the eConsent (Kain para 118) and transactions of the DNA data are only allowed if consent is given when the account is created],” (Kain Para 85) “Together, these forces create the ideal time and place to develop a shared, secure, and owner-controlled medical research data platform,” (Kain Para 86) and, “Genomic, clinical, and Personal Health Information (PHI) data are segregated and stored with independent unique keys hashed based on the same unique identifier. The independent hashed keys are decrypted in flight by a centralized tokenization service and joined together in a separate secure database.” (Kain Para 266). The combination of Kain, Gorski and Cryptopedia, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Cryptopedia further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating each of the one or more tokens associated with the… data, wherein the one or more tokens are blockchain tokens saved in the distributed ledger, and wherein the one or more tokens are linked to the associated… data that is securely stored. (Summary discloses in the blockchain ecosystem, tokens are assets that allow information and value to be transferred, stored, and verified in an efficient and secure manner. These crypto tokens can take many forms, and can be programmed with unique characteristics that expand their use cases. Security Tokens, Utility Tokens, and Cryptocurrencies discloses a token is a representation of a particular asset or utility. Within the context of blockchain technology, tokenization is the process of converting something of value into a digital token that’s usable on a blockchain application. Assets tokenized on the blockchain come in two forms. They can represent tangible assets like gold, real estate, and art, or intangible assets like voting rights, ownership rights, or content licensing. Practically anything can be tokenized if it is considered an asset that can be owned and has value to someone, and can be incorporated into a larger asset market. Security tokens discloses security tokens embody a particular investment, such as a share in a company, a voting right in a company or other centralized organization, or some tangible or digital thing of value. In addition to serving as a digital representation of an underlying asset or utility, security tokens can be programmed with an inexhaustible array of unique characteristics and ownership rights. The future of crypto tokenization discloses blockchain technology enables any asset or service to be represented and stored on a blockchain, thereby democratizing access to assets while providing an unprecedented level of online transparency and security.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski, the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus and the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner with the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia in order to easily trace provenance and transaction history in a way that is cryptographically verifiable (Cryptopedia Transparency and Provability section).
Regarding Claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Kain, Gorski, and Cryptopedia, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Kain further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: sampling DNA from the user; and processing the DNA to generating the DNA data. (Para 243 discloses for genetic and other similar types of data, these may be based upon a sample 62 taken from the individual or from any other population accessible to the individual, such as animals, microbes, plants, environments, and so forth. Such samples may be provided to a genetic testing provider 64. In accordance with known technologies, a genetic sequencer 66 may analyze genetic and other biological materials by DNA sequencing. Based upon such sequence data, the sequencer may forward the data to a sequence processor or processing system 68 where individual strands of sequenced information are pieced together to form larger segments, and in certain cases segments representing entire genes, chromosomes, extra chromosomal DNA, RNA, and other biological material of interest.)
Regarding Claim 4, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Kain discloses “a system is configured to analyze genome variants that include without limitation single nucleotide polymorphisms, indels, short tandem repeats, microsatellites, haplotypes, polynucleotide deletions, polynucleotide insertions, and polynucleotide structural rearrangements. A non-limiting example of such a statistical analysis is comparing a deposited genotyping file to a human reference map to assess the number of rare genotyping variants and their associated frequency in the population” (Kain Para 112), the combination of Kain, Gorski, Cryptopedia, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Gorski further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: analyzing the DNA data to determine at least types of data and amounts of data included within the DNA data. (Para 51 discloses a sensor that extracts DNA information derived from a subject's biological fluid or hair. Para 51-52 discloses a sensor that extracts DNA information derived from a subject's biological fluid or hair. In the variation depicted in FIG. 1, at least one sensor 18; gathers animal data 14; from each targeted individual 16. Intermediary server 22 receives and collects the animal data 14; such that collected data has attached thereto individualized metadata, which may include one or more characteristics of the animal data, origination of the animal data, and/or sensor data (e.g., type, operating parameters, etc.). Para 56-58 discloses the individualized metadata includes origination of the animal data and a targeted individual's one or more attributes. The targeted individual's attributes can include information gathered from genetic-derived data, genomic-derived data, ( e.g., including information related to one or more medical conditions, traits, health risks, inherited conditions, drug responses, DNA sequences, protein sequences and structures). The one or more classifications or tags associated with the animal data contribute to creating or adjusting an associated value for the animal data. A difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the scarcity of the data type, the quality of data coming from any given sensor, the individual or individuals from which the data comes from compared to any other given individual, the type of data, and the amount or volume of data. In another refinement, one or more artificial intelligence techniques (e.g., machine learning, deep learning techniques) may be utilized to dynamically assign one or more classifications, groups, and/or values to one or more data sets.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia, the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus and the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the scarcity of the data… the quality of data… the type of data (Gorski Para 57).
Regarding Claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Kain discloses “the processing circuitry attributes the member-specific value based upon a pre-established calculation applied to all contributing members, and/or the processing circuitry transfers an asset amount to each member-specific account as consideration for member-specific contributed data of the respective contributing member, and/or the asset amount is calculated by a formula having a generalized form” (Kain Para 20), the combination of Kain, Gorski, Cryptopedia, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Gorski further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: valuing the DNA data; determining potential monetization strategies for the DNA data; and presenting the monetization strategies to the one or more corporations. (Para 5 discloses a system for monetizing animal data is provided. The system includes a source of animal data that includes at least one sensor. Para 7 discloses the animal data used in the system for monetizing animal data is human data. Para 9 discloses the system for monetizing animal data can provide purchasers of data (e.g., individuals, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, healthcare companies, military organizations, research institutions) an ability to acquire animal data for its particular use cases via an eCommerce website or platform such as a data marketplace [presenting the monetization strategies to a corporation wherein the strategy is the determined value of the data] . Para 51 discloses a sensor that extracts DNA information derived from a subject's biological fluid or hair. Para 56-57 discloses the targeted individual's attributes can include information gathered from genetic-derived data, genomic-derived data, ( e.g., including information related to one or more medical conditions, traits, health risks, inherited conditions, drug responses, DNA sequences, protein sequences and structures). The one or more classifications or tags associated with the animal data contribute to creating or adjusting an associated value for the animal data. A difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the scarcity of the data type, the quality of data coming from any given sensor, the individual or individuals from which the data comes from compared to any other given individual, the type of data, and the amount or volume of data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia, and the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus with the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons (Gorski Para 57).
Regarding Claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Kain discloses “other processed data 72 may be available based upon the sequence data, such as identification of individual genes, gene variants, and so forth” (Kain Para 243), the combination of Kain, Gorski, Cryptopedia, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Gorski further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining traits, defects, and risks for developing medical conditions. (Para 51-52 discloses a sensor that extracts DNA information derived from a subject's biological fluid or hair. In the variation depicted in FIG. 1, at least one sensor 18; gathers animal data 14; from each targeted individual 16. Intermediary server 22 receives and collects the animal data 14; such that collected data has attached thereto individualized metadata, which may include one or more characteristics of the animal data, origination of the animal data, and/or sensor data (e.g., type, operating parameters, etc.). Para 56 discloses the individualized metadata includes origination of the animal data and a targeted individual's one or more attributes. The targeted individual's attributes can include information gathered from genetic-derived data, genomic-derived data, ( e.g., including information related to one or more medical conditions, traits, health risks, inherited conditions [defects], drug responses, DNA sequences, protein sequences and structures).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia, and the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus with the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the scarcity of the data… the quality of data… the type of data (Gorski Para 57).
Regarding Claim 7, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Kain discloses “the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts” (Kain Para 85), the combination of Kain, Gorski, Cryptopedia, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Gorski further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the monetization strategies include at least selling the DNA data, leasing the DNA data, and providing the DNA data without identifying information regarding individuals or corporations wherein the monetization is performed according to the DNA profile. (Para 7 discloses the animal data used in the system for monetizing animal data is human data. Para 56 discloses the targeted individual's attributes can include information gathered from genetic-derived data, genomic-derived data, ( e.g., including information related to one or more medical conditions, traits, health risks, inherited conditions, drug responses, DNA sequences, protein sequences and structures). Para 57 discloses a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the scarcity of the data type, the quality of data coming from any given sensor, the individual or individuals from which the data comes from compared to any other given individual (e.g., an individual’s data may be worth more than another individual’s data), the type of data. Para 60 discloses a value is typically associated with animal data. The value is used for acquiring, buying, selling, trading, licensing, leasing, advertising, rating, standardizing, certifying, researching, distributing, or brokering an acquisition, purchase, sale, trade, license, lease, or distribution of personal identified or de-identified animal data. Para 77 discloses window 110 is an initial setup page for an individual [DNA Profile]. One or more fields provided by the system may be added by the user (e.g., data provider) should the user want to provide additional information to create more targeted searches (e.g., blood type) for a data acquirer. Para 100 discloses a user's consent to enable a system to use such data would enable the user and/or any other stakeholder to receive consideration in exchange for data usage.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia, and the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus with the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to completely monetize data in multiple ways through buying, selling, trading, leasing and more as disclosed by Gorski (Gorski Para 60).
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Kain, Gorski, Cryptopedia, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Kain further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: creating the (Paras 85-85 disclose the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions… Together, these forces create the ideal time and place to develop a shared, secure, and owner-controlled medical research data platform.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (US PG Pub 2019/0304578 A1), in view of Gorski (US PG Pub 2023/0033102 A1) further in view of NPL reference taught by Cryptopedia (Cryptopedia Staff. (2021, September 7). What is tokenization? blockchain token types. Gemini.)) Barrus (JP 2008257720 A), Eigner (US PG Pub 2017/0277775 A1) and Vishwakarma (US PG Pub 2022/0237470 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Kain discloses “All genomic and health information is anonymized (or de-identified). De-identified or anonymized information does not identify the member based on individual pieces of information or combinations of information. The member's personal information is removed, such that they cannot be reasonably re-identified as an individual,” (Para 118) and Cryptopedia discloses tokenization in blockchain, however, Vishwakarma provides a clearer reading on the following limitation:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: deidentifying the DNA data so that the user is unidentifiable from the one or more tokens. (Para 50 discloses the identity tokens can be generated using a cryptographic hash of information that uniquely identifies the asset [deidentifying]. Para 83 discloses one of the major driving forces for the success of a dedicated genetic blockchain is the participation of the users in genetic research, where they can share data anonymously with Pharma companies and research institutes. For this scenario, users will need to share their DNA sequence and genetic data. Since a blockchain is the preferred manner for data sharing in terms of security and privacy, such sequences can be stored on a specially dedicated blockchain and then shared in a controlled manner by the users rather than users uploading their sequences from centralized servers and then sharing it on a public blockchain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski, tokenization as taught by Cryptopedia, the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus, and the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner with the storing digital data in DNA storage using blockchain and destination-side deduplication using smart contracts as taught by Vishwakarma in order to establish a provenance of the asset and create a full audit trail of the transactions (Vishwakarma para 50) and utilize a blockchain for increased security and privacy (Para 83).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (US PG Pub 2019/0304578 A1), in view of Gorski (US PG Pub 2023/0033102 A1) further in view of NPL reference taught by Cryptopedia (Cryptopedia Staff. (2021, September 7). What is tokenization? blockchain token types. Gemini.)) Barrus (JP 2008257720 A), and Eigner (US PG Pub 2017/0277775 A1) and Martin (US Patent 9,197,414 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Barrus discloses the tokens, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Kain discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: and performing transactions for the one or more [tokens] associated with the DNA data utilizing the data platform. (Paras 85-86 discloses the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions… Together, these forces create the ideal time and place to develop a shared, secure, and owner-controlled medical research data platform. Para 264 and FIGS. 9A-9J disclose certain example interface screens that may be used for interacting with prospective and existing members.)
While the combination of Kain, Gorski, Cryptopedia, Barrus, and Eigner disclose the above limitations and advertising the DNA data and “Another aspect of an effective monetization system is advertisement of the products and services provided by the system ( e.g., created, offered). Animal data may be utilized, either directly or indirectly, within an advertisement, engagement, or promotion on a web page or other digital platform (e.g., within a virtual reality or augmented reality system) for the purpose of attracting a user to click through to a third-party web page or other digital destination that directly or indirectly utilizes the animal data,” (Gorski Para 99), the combination does not fully disclose the authorization that Martin discloses:
advertising the DNA data to authorized parties, (Column 5, lines 49-53 discloses encrypting one or more message packets that include a message and a message authentication tag. And, in at least one of the various embodiments, communicating the encrypted message packets to the provisioned remote access point. Claim 29 discloses further comprising, when an authorized authentication device provides the synchronized time value and a cryptographic state key to the mobile device, decrypting a cryptographic state of the mobile device and enabling the communication of the one or more advertising information packets to the one or more remote access points)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation and data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski and the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia with the authorization of the cryptographic protocol for portable device as taught by Martin in order to implement authorization, for security … purposes, and is otherwise locked or inaccessible to the user (Column 4, lines 6-7).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (US PG Pub 2019/0304578 A1), in view of Gorski (US PG Pub 2023/0033102 A1) further in view of Barrus (JP 2008257720 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Kain discloses:
A system for managing DNA data, comprising:
a DNA system for determining DNA data associated with a user, a DNA profile is associated with the user; (Para 243 discloses for genetic and other similar types of data, these may be based upon a sample 62 taken from the individual or from any other population accessible to the individual, such as animals, microbes, plants, environments, and so forth. Such samples may be provided to a genetic testing provider 64. In accordance with known technologies, a genetic sequencer 66 may analyze genetic and other biological materials by DNA sequencing. Based upon such sequence data, the sequencer may forward the data to a sequence processor or processing system 68 where individual strands of sequenced information are pieced together to form larger segments, and in certain cases segments representing entire genes, chromosomes, extra chromosomal DNA, RNA, and other biological material of interest. The resulting aligned sequence data 70 is typically stored in one or more files.)
a plurality of electronic devices executing a data application, the data application is configured to capture the information associated with a user; and a data platform in communication with the DNA system and accessible by the plurality of electronic devices executing the data application through one or more networks (Para 246-247 discloses the member portal itself may run on any suitable type of computer or combination of computers and will be in communication with the member computer by the Internet or any suitable network or combination of networks. The member may contact the portal by a conventional URL, or by a browser search, or any other initial contact mechanism. The interface screens will walk the member through the account creation and data transfer process… The account portal computer or computers may include one or more interfaces 108 designed to permit interaction with the member computer as well as one or more processors 110 and memory 112. Here again, the memory will typically store various screens and interaction protocols that are implemented by the processor via the interface.)
monetizes the DNA data by facilitating smart contract-enabled transactions wherein the smart contract is configured to access the user preferences set forth in the DNA profile and to authorize the smart contract enabled transactions based on the user preferences, and wherein (Para 88 discloses the database will earn money through the sale of access to its de-identified pooled data, metadata, and research findings by the system and its members to third party partners in the research and medical industry and by supporting clinical trial activities such as recruitment, data monitoring, and post-trial recontact. Para 267 discloses when a member creates an account certain data is exchanged, and in particular, the member may create their digital credentials and explicitly accept an informed consent for population level research… The creation of a user identity is performed anonymously via the ledger with an identity that the system hashes to their administrative data. Next, as summarized above, the user is prompted to add data, and when it is supplied, another transaction is posted that a smart contract executes the appropriate transfer of value, and the data passes through QC and is added to the summary databases, as also summarized above. See further: Para 85-85)
the monetization is performed according to user preferences set forth in the DNA profile and the smart contract. (Para 267 discloses when a member creates an account certain data is exchanged, and in particular, the member may create their digital credentials and explicitly accept an informed consent for population level research. They can opt-out of recontact to ensure that they do not learn something about their genetics that could be alarming. The creation of a user identity is performed anonymously via the ledger with an identity that the system hashes to their administrative data. Next, as summarized above, the user is prompted to add data, and when it is supplied, another transaction is posted that a smart contract executes the appropriate transfer of value [monetization], and the data passes through QC and is added to the summary databases, as also summarized above.)
While Kain discloses the above limitations and “the member population may be thought of in some respects as “users” 16 (but who are or will become contributing members, as distinguished to third party entities who may be interested in the aggregated data and arrange remuneration for access and “use” as discussed below) to the extent that they will interact with the system via served interfaces both to create accounts, to contribute member-specific contributed data, and to manage aspects of their account and data,” (Kain Para 236), it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Gorski discloses:
the DNA data is stored in the DNA profile (Para 77 discloses prior to fig. 3A, login credentials may be provided. Window 110 is an initial setup page for an individual… other types of personal information may also be included or uploaded including… more granular data including genetic/genomic information related to an individual [storing DNA data in a DNA profile associated with the user].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the individual or individuals from which the data comes from compared to any other given individual (e.g., an individual’s data may be worth more than another individual’s data) (Gorski Para 57).
While Gorski discloses the above limitations and the DNA data stored in a DNA profile as presented above and a “blockchain ecosystem” (Gorski Para 61) and Kain discloses “the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions [wherein the user consent is gathered from the eConsent (Kain para 118) and Kain Para 266 discloses, “Genomic, clinical, and Personal Health Information (PHI) data are segregated and stored with independent unique keys hashed based on the same unique identifier. The independent hashed keys are decrypted in flight by a centralized tokenization service and joined together in a separate secure database that contains hashed passwords, user ID, and the like. Segregation is used to make each of the independent data sources resilient to being compromised; multiple data sources must be compromised before any utility can be recovered from the data,” and thus discloses the DNA data as presented above, it does not clearly define the following limitations that Barrus discloses:
the data platform tokenizes the [DNA] data… into one or more tokens, (Para 66 discloses as shown in FIG. 8, upon receiving a request to generate a new token, the process can be activated (step 802). A unique identifier for the object associated with the token to be generated may be generated (step 804). The identifier generated at 804 is such that it can be used to identify and access shared data. In one embodiment, the identifier can be calculated as a hash of a random stream of data generated by a random number generator. At 804, a unique identifier may be generated using other techniques. A unique symmetric encryption key for the object associated with the token to be generated is also created (step 806).)
each of the one or more tokens including an identifier associated with the DNA data, wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the DNA data, and (Para 71 discloses each time a user wants to share a new document, the document is encrypted using the encryption key on the token, and then a new document identifier is calculated or generated. The encrypted document is uploaded to the location defined by the new identifier [token identifier and encrypted storage location]. The new identifier is added to the list of document identifiers stored in the identifier metadata [metadata referencing encrypted storage location because the location is defined by the identify] in the token. The identifier in the collection can still be encrypted using the encryption key in the token.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain and the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski with the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus in order to only allow those who have access to a token with the same identifier and encryption key can access the data from the stored location and decrypt the data to securely share data between users (Para 52).
Regarding Claim 12, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Kain, Gorski, and Barrus discloses the following limitation that Kain further discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the DNA system receives a DNA sample from the user, wherein the system includes at least a DNA sequencer. (Para 243 discloses for genetic and other similar types of data, these may be based upon a sample 62 taken from the individual or from any other population accessible to the individual, such as animals, microbes, plants, environments, and so forth. Such samples may be provided to a genetic testing provider 64. In accordance with known technologies, a genetic sequencer 66 may analyze genetic and other biological materials by DNA sequencing. Based upon such sequence data, the sequencer may forward the data to a sequence processor or processing system 68 where individual strands of sequenced information are pieced together to form larger segments, and in certain cases segments representing entire genes, chromosomes, extra chromosomal DNA, RNA, and other biological material of interest.)
Regarding Claim 15, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Kain discloses “other processed data 72 may be available based upon the sequence data, such as identification of individual genes, gene variants, and so forth” (Kain Para 243) and the combination of Kain, Gorski, and Barrus discloses the following limitation Gorski further discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the data platform further determines traits, defects, and risks for developing medical conditions. (Para 51-52 discloses a sensor that extracts DNA information derived from a subject's biological fluid or hair. In the variation depicted in FIG. 1, at least one sensor 18; gathers animal data 14; from each targeted individual 16. Intermediary server 22 receives and collects the animal data 14; such that collected data has attached thereto individualized metadata, which may include one or more characteristics of the animal data, origination of the animal data, and/or sensor data (e.g., type, operating parameters, etc.). Para 56 discloses the individualized metadata includes origination of the animal data and a targeted individual's one or more attributes. The targeted individual's attributes can include information gathered from genetic-derived data, genomic-derived data, ( e.g., including information related to one or more medical conditions, traits, health risks, inherited conditions [defects], drug responses, DNA sequences, protein sequences and structures).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain and the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the scarcity of the data… the quality of data… the type of data (Gorski Para 57).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (US PG Pub 2019/0304578 A1), in view of Gorski (US PG Pub 2023/0033102 A1) further in view of Barrus (JP 2008257720 A), the NPL reference taught by Cryptopedia (Cryptopedia Staff. (2021, September 7). What is tokenization? blockchain token types. Gemini.)) and Vishwakarma (US PG Pub 2022/0237470 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Kain discloses the DNA data and “new data contributors may receive a digital “wallet ID” and a custom cryptocurrency coin, that is designed to represent or track the value of the database asset, every time they contribute additional data. A wide range of genomic and omic data types may be accepted, including for example SNP array data, DNA sequencing data, somatic genome data, methylome data, virome data, pathegenomic data, and microbiome data,” (Kain Para 18), “immutable ledger records transactions including submission of member-specific contributed data and attribution of member-specific value,” (Kain Para 26), “the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions [wherein the user consent is gathered from the eConsent (Kain para 118) and transactions of the DNA data are only allowed if consent is given when the account is created],” (Kain Para 85) and “Together, these forces create the ideal time and place to develop a shared, secure, and owner-controlled medical research data platform,” (Kain Para 86). The combination of Kain, Gorski and Barrus does not fully disclose the following limitation that Cryptopedia discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more tokens are blockchain tokens, and wherein the one or more tokens and associated [DNA] data are saved in (Summary discloses in the blockchain ecosystem, tokens are assets that allow information and value to be transferred, stored, and verified in an efficient and secure manner. These crypto tokens can take many forms, and can be programmed with unique characteristics that expand their use cases. Security Tokens, Utility Tokens, and Cryptocurrencies discloses a token is a representation of a particular asset or utility. Within the context of blockchain technology, tokenization is the process of converting something of value into a digital token that’s usable on a blockchain application. Assets tokenized on the blockchain come in two forms. They can represent tangible assets like gold, real estate, and art, or intangible assets like voting rights, ownership rights, or content licensing. Practically anything can be tokenized if it is considered an asset that can be owned and has value to someone, and can be incorporated into a larger asset market. Security tokens discloses security tokens embody a particular investment, such as a share in a company, a voting right in a company or other centralized organization, or some tangible or digital thing of value. In addition to serving as a digital representation of an underlying asset or utility, security tokens can be programmed with an inexhaustible array of unique characteristics and ownership rights. The future of crypto tokenization discloses blockchain technology enables any asset or service to be represented and stored on a blockchain, thereby democratizing access to assets while providing an unprecedented level of online transparency and security.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski and the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus, with the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia in order to easily trace provenance and transaction history in a way that is cryptographically verifiable (Cryptopedia Transparency and Provability section).
While the combination of Kain, Gorski, Barrus, and Cryptopedia disclose the above limitations and further Kain discloses “All genomic and health information is anonymized (or de-identified). De-identified or anonymized information does not identify the member based on individual pieces of information or combinations of information. The member's personal information is removed, such that they cannot be reasonably re-identified as an individual,” (Para 118) and Cryptopedia discloses tokenization in blockchain, Vishwakarma provides a clearer reading on the following limitation:
wherein the information and the DNA data is deidentified so that the user is unidentifiable from the one or more tokens, (Para 48-51 discloses certain DNA information (e.g., metadata) is stored in a blockchain [distributed ledger] In general, a blockchain can include a history of data, messages, or transactions in a series of blocks where each block contains a mathematical summary, called a hash, of the previous block… the security of the blockchain is further enhanced by storing the blockchain data on a distributed network. Blockchains can be used with various types of transactions. For example, a transaction can use identity tokens for physical or digital assets. The identity tokens can be generated using a cryptographic hash of information that uniquely identifies the asset [deidentifying]. The tokens can also have an owner that uses an additional public/private key pair… The creation of an identity token [generating tokens] for an asset in a blockchain can establish a provenance of the asset, and the identity token can be used in transactions of the asset stored in a blockchain, creating a full audit trail of the transactions [ledger]. Para 82-83 discloses DNA storage provides several valuable advantages, such as immutability and decentralization… the decentralization of the genetic data provides higher levels of security over centralized server storages. One of the major driving forces for the success of a dedicated genetic blockchain is the participation of the users in genetic research, where they can share data anonymously with Pharma companies and research institutes..)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski and the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus and the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia with the storing digital data in DNA storage using blockchain and destination-side deduplication using smart contracts as taught by Vishwakarma in order to establish a provenance of the asset and create a full audit trail of the transactions (Vishwakarma para 50) and utilize a blockchain for increased security and privacy (Para 83).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (US PG Pub 2019/0304578 A1), in view of Gorski (US PG Pub 2023/0033102 A1) further in view of Barrus (JP 2008257720 A) and Martin (US Patent 9,197,414 B1).
Regarding Claim 14, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 11 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Barrus discloses the one or more tokens, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Kain discloses:
The system of claim 11, performs transactions [for the one or more tokens] associated with the DNA data. (Paras 85-86 discloses the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions… Together, these forces create the ideal time and place to develop a shared, secure, and owner-controlled medical research data platform. Para 264 and FIGS. 9A-9J disclose certain example interface screens that may be used for interacting with prospective and existing members.)
While Kain discloses the above limitation and the DNA data, the combination of Kain, Gorski, and Barrus also discloses the following limitation that Barrus further discloses:
wherein the data platform further generates each of the one or more tokens associated with the DNA data, and (Para 66 discloses as shown in FIG. 8, upon receiving a request to generate a new token, the process can be activated (step 802). A unique identifier for the object associated with the token to be generated may be generated (step 804). The identifier generated at 804 is such that it can be used to identify and access shared data. In one embodiment, the identifier can be calculated as a hash of a random stream of data generated by a random number generator. At 804, a unique identifier may be generated using other techniques. A unique symmetric encryption key for the object associated with the token to be generated is also created (step 806).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain and the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski with the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus in order to only allow those who have access to a token with the same identifier and encryption key can access the data from the stored location and decrypt the data to securely share data between users (Para 52).
While the combination of Kain, Gorski, and Barrus disclose the above limitations and advertising the DNA data and “Another aspect of an effective monetization system is advertisement of the products and services provided by the system ( e.g., created, offered). Animal data may be utilized, either directly or indirectly, within an advertisement, engagement, or promotion on a web page or other digital platform (e.g., within a virtual reality or augmented reality system) for the purpose of attracting a user to click through to a third-party web page or other digital destination that directly or indirectly utilizes the animal data,” (Gorski Para 99), the combination does not fully disclose the authorization that Martin discloses:
advertises the DNA data to authorized parties, (Column 5, lines 49-53 discloses encrypting one or more message packets that include a message and a message authentication tag. And, in at least one of the various embodiments, communicating the encrypted message packets to the provisioned remote access point. Claim 29 discloses further comprising, when an authorized authentication device provides the synchronized time value and a cryptographic state key to the mobile device, decrypting a cryptographic state of the mobile device and enabling the communication of the one or more advertising information packets to the one or more remote access points)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation and data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski and technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus with the authorization of the cryptographic protocol for portable device as taught by Martin in order to implement authorization, for security … purposes, and is otherwise locked or inaccessible to the user (Column 4, lines 6-7).
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (US PG Pub 2019/0304578 A1), in view of Gorski (US PG Pub 2023/0033102 A1) further in view of Barrus (JP 2008257720 A) and Eigner (US PG Pub 2017/0277775 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Kain discloses:
A data platform, comprising:
wherein the DNA profile is… accessible only via user authentication, (Para 30-31 discloses and a portal that permits interaction by the contributing members with the server to access the respective member-specific account data via an account identification feature; wherein the portal is configured to permit access to the respective member-specific account data for a respective contributing member by a requestor via a secure alternative authentication protocol that maintains a de-identified nature of the stored member-specific contributed data of the respective contributing member... the account identification feature comprises a username and password [thus the DNA profile is encrypted and accessible only via user authentication]. Para 108 discloses a system sometimes includes one or more security features designed to prevent inappropriate access to an account identification feature. A central database in the system generally stores de-identified data, dis-aggregated data, and features associated with an account. Para 175 discloses contributed data database: a databased that contains de-identified and/or encrypted data contributed by members; the data of the contributed data database may be any type of data mentioned above, for example.)
monetize the DNA data by facilitating smart contract-enabled transactions, wherein the smart contract is configured to access the user preference set forth in the DNA profile to verify approval from the user for the transactions, and wherein (Para 88 discloses the database will earn money through the sale of access to its de-identified pooled data, metadata, and research findings by the system and its members to third party partners in the research and medical industry and by supporting clinical trial activities such as recruitment, data monitoring, and post-trial recontact. Para 267 discloses when a member creates an account certain data is exchanged, and in particular, the member may create their digital credentials and explicitly accept an informed consent for population level research [user preference set forth in the DNA profile to verify approval from the user for the transactions]… The creation of a user identity is performed anonymously via the ledger with an identity that the system hashes to their administrative data. Next, as summarized above, the user is prompted to add data, and when it is supplied, another transaction is posted that a smart contract executes the appropriate transfer of value, and the data passes through QC and is added to the summary databases, as also summarized above. See further: Para 85-85)
the monetization is performed according to (Para 267 discloses when a member creates an account certain data is exchanged, and in particular, the member may create their digital credentials and explicitly accept an informed consent for population level research. They can opt-out of recontact to ensure that they do not learn something about their genetics that could be alarming. The creation of a user identity is performed anonymously via the ledger with an identity that the system hashes to their administrative data. Next, as summarized above, the user is prompted to add data, and when it is supplied, another transaction is posted that a smart contract executes the appropriate transfer of value [monetization], and the data passes through QC and is added to the summary databases, as also summarized above.)
While Kain discloses the above limitations and “The account portal may communicate again by any suitable network or combination of networks, and may operate based upon, among other things, a shares API 100. As noted below, various approaches, protocols, and processes may be implemented to generate and account for value or shares in the database or databases of the present system. The account portal computer or computers may include one or more interfaces 108 designed to permit interaction with the member computer as well as one or more processors 110 and memory 112. Here again, the memory will typically store various screens and interaction protocols that are implemented by the processor via the interface” (Kain Para 247), it does not fully disclose the following limitations that Gorski discloses:
a processor for executing a set of instructions; a memory for storing the set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions are executed to: (Paras 41-42 discloses a computing device includes a central processing unit that can execute program steps and memory for storing data and a program code. As used herein, a computing subsystem is a computing device. The processes, methods, or algorithms disclosed herein can be deliverable to/implemented by a computing device, controller, or computer, which can include any existing programmable electronic control unit or dedicated electronic control unit. Similarly, the processes, methods, or algorithms can be stored as data and instructions executable by a controller or computer in many forms… The processes, methods, or algorithms can also be implemented in a software executable object. Alternatively, the processes, methods, or algorithms can be embodied in whole or in part using suitable hardware components, such as Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), state machines, controllers or other hardware components or devices, or a combination of hardware, software and firmware components.)
establishing a DNA profile associated with a user (Para 77 discloses Window 110 is an initial setup page for an individual. One or more fields provided by the system may be added by the user (e.g., data provider) should the user want to provide additional information to create more targeted searches (e.g., blood type) for a data acquirer. Other types of personal information may also be included or uploaded including personal history (e.g., surgeries, broken bones, abuse, other illnesses), more granular data including genetic/genomic information related to an individual (e.g., one or more data sets related to an individual's DNA sequences, protein sequences and structures, RNA sequences and structures, gene expression profiles, gene-gene interactions, DNA-protein interactions, DNA methylation profiles) [storing DNA data in a DNA profile], and the like. Para 98 discloses the sensor data that enters the monetization system is synchronized and tagged by the system with information (e.g., metadata) related to the user or characteristics of the sensor including time stamps, sensor type and sensor settings, along with one or more other characteristics within the monetization system. For example, the sensor data may be assigned to a specific user [wherein para 51 of Gorski discloses the at least one sensor may be… a sensor that extracts DNA information derived from a subject's biological fluid or hair]… the synchronization of all incoming data may use specific schema suitable for real-time or near real-time data transfer, reducing latency, providing error checking and a layer of security, with an ability to encrypt parts of a data packet or the entire data packet. See Further: Para 86 and FIG. 9.)
determine information associated with the user; (Para 52 discloses in the variation depicted in FIG. 1, at least one sensor 18; gathers animal data 14; from each targeted individual 16. Intermediary server 22 receives and collects the animal data 14; such that collected data has attached thereto individualized metadata, which may include one or more characteristics of the animal data, origination of the animal data, and/or sensor data (e.g., type, operating parameters, etc.). Other information, including one or more attributes of the individual from which the animal data originated or other attributes related to the sensor or data, can be added to the metadata or associated with the animal data upon collection of the animal data ( e.g., name, height, age, weight, data quality assessments, etc.). See Further: Para 77.)
obtain DNA data associated with the user, (Para 51 discloses a sensor that extracts DNA information derived from a subject's biological fluid or hair. Para 56 discloses the targeted individual's attributes can include information gathered from genetic-derived data, genomic-derived data, ( e.g., including information related to one or more medical conditions, traits, health risks, inherited conditions [defects], drug responses, DNA sequences, protein sequences and structures).)
the information and the DNA data is stored in the DNA profile associated with the user by a data platform; (Para 77 discloses Window 110 is an initial setup page for an individual. Window 110 includes section 112 where a creator of data or administrator/manager (e.g., user) can enter in a subject's various individual attributes. In the case of a human, this includes age, height, personal history, social habits, and the like [storing information in DNA profile]. One or more fields provided by the system may be added by the user (e.g., data provider) should the user want to provide additional information to create more targeted searches (e.g., blood type) for a data acquirer. Other types of personal information may also be included or uploaded including personal history (e.g., surgeries, broken bones, abuse, other illnesses), more granular data including genetic/genomic information related to an individual (e.g., one or more data sets related to an individual's DNA sequences, protein sequences and structures, RNA sequences and structures, gene expression profiles, gene-gene interactions, DNA-protein interactions, DNA methylation profiles) [storing DNA data in a DNA profile], and the like. Para 83-84 discloses In another refinement, animal data collected by the system is included as one or more profile search parameters. For example, the monetization platform can be further programmed to search for, and identify, individuals that have collected data sets featuring one or more specific characteristics (e.g., activity, sensor used) within a desired pool of individuals. Para 86 and FIG. 9 discloses an illustration of a purchase window 190 that is displayed after a data acquirer has found and selected the one or more data sets derived from profiles of the one or more individuals, they are interested in.)
deidentify the DNA profile so that the user is not identifiable through the information or the DNA data; (Para 56 discloses it should be appreciated that various components of the animal data can be anonymized or de-identified. De-identification involves the removal of personal identifying information in order to protect personal privacy. In the context of the present invention, anonymized and deidentified are considered synonymous.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the type of data, quality of data, and the individual or individuals from which the data comes from compared to any other given individual (e.g., an individual’s data may be worth more than another individual’s data) (Gorski Para 57).
While Gorski discloses the above limitations and the DNA data stored in a DNA profile as presented above and a “blockchain ecosystem” (Gorski Para 61) and Kain discloses “the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions [wherein the user consent is gathered from the eConsent (Kain para 118) and Kain Para 266 discloses, “Genomic, clinical, and Personal Health Information (PHI) data are segregated and stored with independent unique keys hashed based on the same unique identifier. The independent hashed keys are decrypted in flight by a centralized tokenization service and joined together in a separate secure database that contains hashed passwords, user ID, and the like. Segregation is used to make each of the independent data sources resilient to being compromised; multiple data sources must be compromised before any utility can be recovered from the data,” and thus discloses the DNA data as presented above, it does not clearly define the following limitations that Barrus discloses:
tokenize the DNA data into one or more tokens including generating at least one token identifier associated with the [DNA] data [stored within the DNA profile], (Para 66 discloses as shown in FIG. 8, upon receiving a request to generate a new token, the process can be activated (step 802). A unique identifier for the object associated with the token to be generated may be generated (step 804). The identifier generated at 804 is such that it can be used to identify and access shared data. In one embodiment, the identifier can be calculated as a hash of a random stream of data generated by a random number generator. At 804, a unique identifier may be generated using other techniques. A unique symmetric encryption key for the object associated with the token to be generated is also created (step 806).)
wherein each of the one or more tokens includes an identifier associated with the DNA data, comprises metadata referencing a storage location of the DNA data and serves as a secure access mechanism for the [DNA] data; and (Para 71 discloses each time a user wants to share a new document, the document is encrypted using the encryption key on the token, and then a new document identifier is calculated or generated. The encrypted document is uploaded to the location defined by the new identifier [token identifier and encrypted storage location]. The new identifier is added to the list of document identifiers stored in the identifier metadata [metadata referencing encrypted storage location because the location is defined by the identify] in the token. The identifier in the collection can still be encrypted using the encryption key in the token.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain and the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski with the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus in order to only allow those who have access to a token with the same identifier and encryption key can access the data from the stored location and decrypt the data to securely share data between users (Para 52).
While the combination of Kain, Gorski, and Barrus discloses the above limitations include the DNA data and the DNA profile as presented above with Kain and Gorski, the combination does not clearly define that the user profile is encrypted as Eigner discloses:
the [DNA] profile is encrypted (Para 28 discloses the user profile may be encrypted and stored remotely in a cloud-based system at a remote server, with portions of the profile stored in separate locations with separate encryption to minimize the risk of unauthorized access to one portion of the information. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski, and the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus with the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner in order to securely store user data within a user profile and to minimize the risk of unauthorized access to the information and further utilizes separate encryption keys within the user profile in order to “minimize the amount of information which could be disclosed by the unauthorized access to a single encryption key.”
Regarding Claim 17, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 16 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, the combination of Kain, Gorski Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Kain discloses:
The data platform of claim 16, further comprising: a DNA system that determines the DNA data from a DNA sample provided by the user. (Para 243 discloses for genetic and other similar types of data, these may be based upon a sample 62 taken from the individual or from any other population accessible to the individual, such as animals, microbes, plants, environments, and so forth. Such samples may be provided to a genetic testing provider 64. In accordance with known technologies, a genetic sequencer 66 may analyze genetic and other biological materials by DNA sequencing. Based upon such sequence data, the sequencer may forward the data to a sequence processor or processing system 68 where individual strands of sequenced information are pieced together to form larger segments, and in certain cases segments representing entire genes, chromosomes, extra chromosomal DNA, RNA, and other biological material of interest.)
Regarding Claim 18, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 16 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Kain discloses “other processed data 72 may be available based upon the sequence data, such as identification of individual genes, gene variants, and so forth” (Kain Para 243), the combination of Kain, Gorski, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Gorski further discloses:
The data platform of claim 16, wherein the set of instructions are further executed to: analyze the DNA data to determine at least traits, defects, and risks for developing medical conditions. Para 51-52 discloses a sensor that extracts DNA information derived from a subject's biological fluid or hair. In the variation depicted in FIG. 1, at least one sensor 18; gathers animal data 14; from each targeted individual 16. Intermediary server 22 receives and collects the animal data 14; such that collected data has attached thereto individualized metadata, which may include one or more characteristics of the animal data, origination of the animal data, and/or sensor data (e.g., type, operating parameters, etc.). Para 56 discloses the individualized metadata includes origination of the animal data and a targeted individual's one or more attributes. The targeted individual's attributes can include information gathered from genetic-derived data, genomic-derived data, ( e.g., including information related to one or more medical conditions, traits, health risks, inherited conditions [defects], drug responses, DNA sequences, protein sequences and structures). Para 58 discloses one or more artificial intelligence techniques (e.g., machine learning, deep learning techniques) may be utilized to dynamically assign one or more classifications, groups, and/or values to one or more data sets. Para 63 discloses if the raw (e.g., unprocessed) data to create the requested data exists within intermediary server 22, the intermediary server may process the raw data (e.g., take one or more actions on the data including manipulation, analysis, and the like) to create the acquirer's requested data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus and the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the scarcity of the data… the quality of data… the type of data (Gorski Para 57).
Regarding Claim 20, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 16 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, the combination of Kain, Gorski, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Kain further discloses:
The data platform of claim 16, further comprising: a gene sequencer configured to generate the DNA data from a specimen of the user. (Para 243 discloses types of data and data exchange that may be envisaged for the system… For genetic and other similar types of data, these may be based upon a sample 62 taken from the individual or from any other population accessible to the individual, such as animals, microbes, plants, environments, and so forth. Such samples may be provided to a genetic testing provider 64. In accordance with known technologies, a genetic sequencer 66 may analyze genetic and other biological materials by DNA sequencing. Based upon such sequence data, the sequencer may forward the data to a sequence processor or processing system 68 where individual strands of sequenced information are pieced together to form larger segments, and in certain cases segments representing entire genes, chromosomes, extra chromosomal DNA, RNA, and other biological material of interest.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (US PG Pub 2019/0304578 A1), in view of Gorski (US PG Pub 2023/0033102 A1) further in view of Barrus (JP 2008257720 A) Eigner (US PG Pub 2017/0277775 A1) and Martin (US Patent 9,197,414 B1).
Regarding Claim 19, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 16 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Gorski discloses the instructions and Barrus discloses the one or more tokens, the combination of Kain, Gorski, Barrus, and Eigner discloses the following limitation that Kain further discloses:
The data platform of claim 16, wherein the set of instructions… perform the transactions [for the one or more tokens] associated with the DNA data, (Paras 85-86 discloses the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions… Together, these forces create the ideal time and place to develop a shared, secure, and owner-controlled medical research data platform. Para 264 and FIGS. 9A-9J disclose certain example interface screens that may be used for interacting with prospective and existing members.)
While Kain discloses the above limitation and the DNA data, the combination of Kain, Gorski, Barrus, and Eigner also discloses the following limitation that Barrus further discloses:
generate each of the one or more tokens associated with the DNA data, and (Para 66 discloses as shown in FIG. 8, upon receiving a request to generate a new token, the process can be activated (step 802). A unique identifier for the object associated with the token to be generated may be generated (step 804). The identifier generated at 804 is such that it can be used to identify and access shared data. In one embodiment, the identifier can be calculated as a hash of a random stream of data generated by a random number generator. At 804, a unique identifier may be generated using other techniques. A unique symmetric encryption key for the object associated with the token to be generated is also created (step 806).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski, and the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner with the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus in order to only allow those who have access to a token with the same identifier and encryption key can access the data from the stored location and decrypt the data to securely share data between users (Para 52).
While the combination of Kain, Gorski, Barrus and Eigner disclose the above limitations and advertising the DNA data and “Another aspect of an effective monetization system is advertisement of the products and services provided by the system ( e.g., created, offered). Animal data may be utilized, either directly or indirectly, within an advertisement, engagement, or promotion on a web page or other digital platform (e.g., within a virtual reality or augmented reality system) for the purpose of attracting a user to click through to a third-party web page or other digital destination that directly or indirectly utilizes the animal data,” (Gorski Para 99), the combination does not fully disclose the authorization that Martin discloses:
advertise the DNA data to authorized parties, (Column 5, lines 49-53 discloses encrypting one or more message packets that include a message and a message authentication tag. And, in at least one of the various embodiments, communicating the encrypted message packets to the provisioned remote access point. Claim 29 discloses further comprising, when an authorized authentication device provides the synchronized time value and a cryptographic state key to the mobile device, decrypting a cryptographic state of the mobile device and enabling the communication of the one or more advertising information packets to the one or more remote access points)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the omic data aggregation and data quality valuation as taught by Kain, the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski, the technique for sharing data as taught by Barrus and the system and methods for secure storage of user information in a user profile as taught by Eigner with the authorization of the cryptographic protocol for portable device as taught by Martin in order to implement authorization, for security … purposes, and is otherwise locked or inaccessible to the user (Column 4, lines 6-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/11/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the removal of the rejected limitation from claim 11. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/11/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to merely organizing human activity or performing economic transactions, but instead recite a concrete technological implementation that improves security, traceability, authentication control, and distributed management of sensitive genomic information. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Further, the claims do not recite an improvement in secure storage, controlled access, and monetization of DNA derived digital data. While the additional elements of the data platform in communication with a DNA system that sequences DNA, the DNA profile encrypted and accessible only via user authentication, the distributed ledger, the smart contract-enabled transactions on the data platform for the one or more tokens, and cryptographically recording user consent prior to the transactions, data sharing, or usage, and one or more networks implement the results of the abstract idea, there is no indication that these additional elements operate in a manner different than they normally operate in or that the claims solve any problem associated with utilizing the additional elements. For example, displaying data on an external monitor does not improve the monitor; it is operating as it normally operates. Operating another device in the manner it normally operates is insufficient to improve that computer or other technology. As such, these additional elements are not improved through implementation of the abstract idea and a practical application is not present.
The Applicant argues that “obtaining DNA data associated with a user, the DNA data is stored in a DNA profile associated with the user by a data platform including at least a processor and a memory and in communication with a DNA system that sequences DNA, the DNA profile is encrypted and accessible only via user authentication,” is not merely data gathering, “as asserted in the Office Action and Advisory Action.” The Examiner notes that these limitations were not classified as “merely data gathering,” in the Office Action and Advisory Action, wherein presumably the Applicant is discussing mere data gathering in terms of insignificant extra-solution activity. Instead, as presented previously, "by a data platform including at least a processor and a memory and in communication with a DNA system that sequences DNA, the DNA profile is encrypted and accessible only via user authentication" was found to be additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, obtaining and storing DNA data associated with a user was found to be abstract, as these are rules or instructions a person would follow to obtain and store DNA data as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation could be a person receiving a physical file of physical documents or images indicating DNA data. Limiting the claim to a processor-based platform does not exclude the separate limitation of “obtaining and storing DNA data associated with a user” from being directed to the abstract idea. Obtaining data by applying a processor-based platform to the abstract idea is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Applicant further argues that the claims recite a specific technological solution for secure genomic data governance and “the secure management, traceability, and controlled monetization of genomic data”. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the data platform in communication with the DNA system. The problem of needing “secure management, traceability, and controlled monetization of genomic data” was not a problem caused by the processor that is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a business problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
The Applicant then argues that the smart contracts are not mental processes. The Examiner notes that, “Smart contract-enabled transactions on the data platform for the one or more tokens,” was not cited as a part of a mental process, it was found to be an additional element recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Merely applying a smart contract to the data involved in the process is not enough to provide a practical application. There is no indication that the smart contract program operates in a manner different than it normally operate. For example, displaying data on an external monitor does not improve the monitor, as such, utilizing a smart contract to enforce user-defined restrictions on DNA-data transactions through the processor does not improve the processor. It is operating as it normally operates. The claims do not recite any improvement to conventional smart contract software nor does it solve any problem associated with utilizing smart contracts. Operating device in the manner it normally operates is insufficient to improve that computer or other technology. As such, the processor is not improved through implementation of the abstract idea and a practical application is not present.
Further, the Applicant argues that the “Office Action improperly analyzes the claim limitations in isolation rather than as an ordered technological combination.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner identifies the limitations that are directed to an abstract idea and then analyzes the additional elements to determine if the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the Examiner analyzes the claim as a whole and has determined that the claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C 101. This argument is not persuasive.
Finally, the Applicant argues that the claims “contain significantly more” and “define a specialized technological framework that improves secure distributed genomic data management. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the processor nor is there an improvement to another technology (as the Applicant notes in the remarks that the distributed ledger is not improved and similarly the use of smart contracts is merely applied to the abstract idea and functions as expected). Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Applicant’s argument that the field of secure distributed genomic data management is a technology and the claimed invention improves this field is not reflected in the claimed invention. The claims are confined to a general-purpose computer, moreover, the entire field of secure distributed genomic data management is not reasonably understood to be a problem arising in technology, as it is instead a problem arising in business. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of, to paraphrase, obtaining information and DNA data from a user, deidentifying it, and selling the deidentified data based on the consent of the user. Finally, were the Applicant’s line of reasoning correct, the invention in Alice Corp. would have been subject matter eligible because it was an improvement to the technology of settlement risk mitigation.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/11/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argues that neither Kain nor Gorski disclose a “DNA profile associated with the user” that is “encrypted and accessible only via user authentication” within a “data platform… in communication with a DNA system that sequences DNA.” The Applicant argues that Kain concerns clinical data aggregation and digital records, not sequencing derived DNA data stored in encrypted DNA profiles. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously presented, Kain Para 243 discloses for genetic [DNA data] and other similar types of data… a sample taken from the individual… samples may be provided to a genetic testing provider. In accordance with known technologies, a generic sequencer may analyze genetic and other biological materials by DNA sequencing. Kain Para 30-31 discloses a portal that permits interaction by the contributing members with the server to access the respective member-specific account data [DNA profiles]. Further, Kain Abstract discloses, “A system and method are disclosed for the collection and aggregation of genomic, medical, and other data of interest for individuals and populations that may be of interest for analysis, research, pharmaceutical development, medical treatment, and so forth. Contributors become members of a community upon creation of an account and providing of data or files. The data is received and processed, such as to analyze, structure, perform quality control, and curate the data. Value or shares in one or more community databases are computed and attributed to each contributing member. The data is controlled to avoid identification or personalization. Third parties interested in the database information may contribute value (e.g., pay) for access and use. Value flows back to the members and to a system administrative entity.” However, as previously presented, while Para 236 of Kain discloses, “the member population may be thought of in some respect as “users”… to the extent that they will interact with the system via served interfaces both to create accounts” and thus discloses a DNA profile, it does not fully disclose storing DNA data in the DNA profile itself. The Examiner cited Gorski as reading on this limitation. However, the Applicant then argues that Gorski is directed to a general monetization platform for animal data and “the mere ability of a general-purpose data platform to accept genomic information as one of many optional data fields does not teach or suggest a system architecturally centered on an encrypted, authentication-gated DNA profile as claimed.” The Examiner notes that the claims do not exclude the ability to collect data other than specific DNA data, it merely requires that the system must at least be able to perform the method on DNA data, as the combination of Kain and Gorski discloses as previously presented. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
In regards to the DNA profile being encrypted, this argument is rendered moot because the current ground for rejection does not rely on the prior combination of references applied in the prior rejection for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See application of prior art above.
Further, the Applicant argues Kain and Gorski do not read on, “tokenizing the DNA data into one or more tokens, each of the one or more tokens including a token identifier associated with the DNA data utilizing the data platform” As previously presented, Kain discloses an identifier associated with the DNA data utilizing the data platform and secure and traceable access of the DNA data, user consent, and transactions as well as “new data contributors may receive a digital “wallet ID” and a custom cryptocurrency coin, that is designed to represent or track the value of the database asset, every time they contribute additional data. A wide range of genomic and omic data types may be accepted, including for example SNP array data, DNA sequencing data, somatic genome data, methylome data, virome data, pathegenomic data, and microbiome data,” (Kain Para 18), “immutable ledger records transactions including submission of member-specific contributed data and attribution of member-specific value,” (Kain Para 26), “the maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions [wherein the user consent is gathered from the eConsent (Kain para 118) and transactions of the DNA data are only allowed if consent is given when the account is created],” (Kain Para 85), “Together, these forces create the ideal time and place to develop a shared, secure, and owner-controlled medical research data platform,” (Kain Para 86), and, “Genomic, clinical, and Personal Health Information (PHI) data are segregated and stored with independent unique keys hashed based on the same unique identifier. The independent hashed keys are decrypted in flight by a centralized tokenization service and joined together in a separate secure database that contains hashed passwords, user ID, and the like,” (Kain Para 266) and Cryptopedia discloses storing the one or more tokens in a distributed ledger to ensure secure and traceable access of data as previously presented. The “Summary” section of Cryptopedia discloses, “in the blockchain ecosystem, tokens are assets that allow information and value to be transferred, stored, and verified in an efficient and secure manner.” The “future of crypto tokenization” section of Cryptopedia discloses, “blockchain technology enables any asset or service to be represented and stored on a blockchain, thereby democratizing access to assets while providing an unprecedented level of online transparency and security.”
In regards to Kain and Cryptopedia, both references are analogous art as Kain discloses storing member-specific account data in an account blockchain or distributed ledger protocol (Kain Para 29) and maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions (Kain Para 85). Kain further discloses the value and sale of data including genomic data (See Kain Paras 89-90, Community ownership in the database means that when commercial organizations pay market prices to access the database, the profits from these transactions will flow back into the accounts of the community members, such as based on a member's percent ownership… as an owner, the data contributor's stake in the database and/or dividends increases as they deposit more genomic, phenotypic, and biometric (e.g., wearables) data,” and Kain 192-193, “member-specific value: value attributed to individual members by virtue of their participation in the community, such as by contribution of data; value may be in one or more forms, including, for example, ownership shares, currency, cryptocurrency, tokens, etc.”). Cryptopedia discloses the benefits of tokenization in a blockchain application, “tokenization is the process of converting something of value into a digital token that’s usable on a blockchain application… practically anything can be tokenized if it is considered an asset that can be owned and has value to someone (Security Tokens, Utility tokens, and Cryptocurrencies section). Gorski further discloses in para 61, “the system may have the ability to enforce restrictions or usage of the data within the blockchain ecosystem” As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain and the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski with the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia in order to easily trace provenance and transaction history that is cryptographically verifiable (Cryptopedia Transparency and Provability section).
In regards to, tokenizing data into one or more tokens each of the one or more tokens including a token identifier associated with the DNA data utilizing the data platform, and the additional element of “wherein each of the one or more tokens includes metadata referencing an encrypted storage location of the DNA data.” In light of these specific amendments, these arguments are persuasive regarding the newly added limitations and, therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 necessitated by Applicant' s amendments is presented above.
The Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose, “monetizing the DNA data by facilitating smart contract-enabled transactions on the data platform for the one or more tokens, wherein the smart contract is configured to access the user preferences set forth in the DNA profile to verify approval from the user for the transactions and wherein the monetization is performed according to the DNA profile and the smart contract.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kain Para 243 and Fig. 2 disclose certain of the types of data and data exchange that may be envisaged for the system. As discussed above, the system is based upon contributions by human contributors 18. For genetic and other similar types of data, these may be based upon a sample 62 taken from the individual.” Further, paras 241-242 disclose, “Data exchange 52 will be enabled by any desired network connection, so that member data, account data, and contributed data/files 54 may be provided… interactions between the community members and the administrating entity may… be based upon smart contracts, as are interactions with the third party users. Moreover, the ownership and value attributed to the community members may be based upon one or more encrypted, decentralized, and/or public ledgers, cryptocurrencies, and so forth. Such techniques may allow for reliable tracking and “transparency” in transactions, while the present techniques nevertheless are based on confidentiality and member control of personalized or identity-permitting data and data associations.” Further, Kain para 267 discloses, “the member may create their digital credentials and explicitly accept an informed consent for population level research [thus disclosing cryptographic recording of consent prior to the transactions, data sharing, or usage as is claimed and user preferences set for in the user profile]… Next, as summarized above, the user is prompted to add data, and when it is supplied, another transaction is posted that a smart contract executes the appropriate transfer of value [monetization based on a smart contract].” Thus, Kain discloses smart contracts for DNA data as was previously presented. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
In regards to the other two references, Gorski and Cryptopedia: it was not cited that these references read on the DNA specific smart contracts, consent, or preference driven monetization tied to genetic profiles as Kain read on these limitations.
Gorski was specifically cited to read on storing DNA data within a DNA profile (see Gorski 77). As previously presented, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the individual or individuals from which the data comes from compared to any other given individual (e.g., an individual’s data may be worth more than another individual’s data) (Gorski Para 57) and, to clarify, it would have been obvious to store the DNA data within a profile of the individual to properly determine the value of the individual’s data for monetization.
Cryptopedia was cited to read on tokens are stored in a distributed ledger to ensure secure and traceable access of the data and one or more tokens. The examiner previously presented that Kain read on the “secure and traceable access of the DNA data, user consent, and transactions” and pointed to specific paragraphs of Kain before disclosing that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain and the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski with the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia in order to easily trace provenance and transaction history that is cryptographically verifiable (Cryptopedia Transparency and Provability section). In the current grounds for rejection, Barrus reads on the generation of the tokens while also reading on the newly added amendments as presented above.
Finally, the Applicant argues that the Examiner “has not articulated any reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kain, Gorski, and the generic blockchain background teaches of Cryptopedia. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gorski and Kain are analogous art because Kain discloses selling access to the data (Para 90), Third parties interested in the database information may contribute value (e.g., pay) for access and use (abstract), and types of data and data exchange includes genetic and other similar types of data based upon a sample taken from an individual (Para 243) and Gorski discloses a monetization system for exchanging data wherein the data acquirer may request DNA or biological fluid data samples [thus disclosing DNA data] (Para 56-57) and intermediary server 22 provides requested animal data 24 to a data acquirer 26 for consideration (e.g., payment, a reward, a trade for something of value which may or may not be monetary in nature) (Para 52, See Further: Abstract.) Thus, as previously presented, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain with the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski in order to tag the complete data of an individual to properly create or adjust an associated value for animal data as a difference in value may be attributed to a variety of reasons including the individual or individuals from which the data comes from compared to any other given individual (e.g., an individual’s data may be worth more than another individual’s data) (Gorski Para 57) and, to clarify, it would have been obvious to store the DNA data within a profile of the individual to properly determine the value of the individual’s data for monetization.
In regards to Kain and Cryptopedia, both references are analogous art as Kain discloses storing member-specific account data in an account blockchain or distributed ledger protocol (Kain Para 29) and maturing blockchain technology provides an extremely low-friction opportunity to enable data sharing and database monetization through smart contracts. Blockchain smart contracts also enable decentralized control of data and immutable ledger to record transactions (Kain Para 85). Kain further discloses the value and sale of data including genomic data (See Kain Paras 89-90, Community ownership in the database means that when commercial organizations pay market prices to access the database, the profits from these transactions will flow back into the accounts of the community members, such as based on a member's percent ownership… as an owner, the data contributor's stake in the database and/or dividends increases as they deposit more genomic, phenotypic, and biometric (e.g., wearables) data,” and Kain 192-193, “member-specific value: value attributed to individual members by virtue of their participation in the community, such as by contribution of data; value may be in one or more forms, including, for example, ownership shares, currency, cryptocurrency, tokens, etc.”). Cryptopedia discloses the benefits of tokenization in a blockchain application, “tokenization is the process of converting something of value into a digital token that’s usable on a blockchain application… practically anything can be tokenized if it is considered an asset that can be owned and has value to someone (Security Tokens, Utility tokens, and Cryptocurrencies section). Gorski further discloses in para 61, “the system may have the ability to enforce restrictions or usage of the data within the blockchain ecosystem” As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the omic data aggregation with data quality valuation as taught by Kain and the monetization of animal data as taught by Gorski with the NPL reference, “what is tokenization in blockchain” as taught by Cryptopedia in order to easily trace provenance and transaction history that is cryptographically verifiable (Cryptopedia Transparency and Provability section). The motivations for combining including the new references applied to the claims (Barrus and Eigner) are presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA J MORICE DE VARGAS whose telephone number is (703)756-4608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 pm.
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, Peter H. Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. 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.
/SARA JESSICA MORICE DE VARGAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights