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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 02/24/2026. In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 19-21, 23-26 were amended; claims 2-4, 8, 12-14, 18 and 22 are cancelled; claims 27-29 are new; claims 1, 11 and 21 are independent claims. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 14-17 and 19-26 are pending in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 21 in regard to the limitations “wherein the verifiable token comprises: (i) a HMAC (Hash-Based Message Authentication Code) generated by the calling service based on a universally unique identifier (UUID) salted with a salt value as an input to a hashing algorithm; or (ii) an encrypted public key infrastructure (PKI) certificate, wherein the encrypted PKI certificate comprising the first transaction trace ID and the PKI certificate is decrypted by the clearinghouse using a public key provided by the calling service; determining, by the one or more processors, using a cryptographic key generated by the calling service, that the received first transaction trace ID is trusted,” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwanes et al (“Selwanes,” US 20170329910), Gaddam et al (“Gaddam,” US 20160028550) and further in view of Peddada et al (“Peddada,” US 20170163618).
Regarding claim 1, Selwanes discloses a method for trace identifier (ID) validation and trust, said method comprises:
receiving, by one or more processors, by a clearinghouse, and from a calling service including a health care provider or a payor, (Selwanes discloses [0024] receiving, by one or more processors [0139], by a clearinghouse [0166], and from a calling service [0182] including a health care provider [0216] or a payor [0216])
a first claim processing transaction having a first transaction trace ID, (Selwanes discloses a first claim processing transaction [0262], [0015], [0218] having a first transaction trace ID [0024])
wherein the first claim processing transaction is associated with processing a health care claim, (Rowe discloses wherein the first claim processing transaction [0262], [0015] is associated with processing a health care claim [0218])
wherein the first transaction trace ID uniquely traces the first claim processing transaction and includes a verifiable token, (Selwanes discloses wherein the first transaction trace ID [0024] uniquely traces [0024] the first claim processing transaction [0262], [0015] and includes a verifiable token [0183])
validating, by the one or more processors, and by the clearinghouse, the received first transaction ID (Selwanes discloses validating [0183], by the one or more processors [0139], and by the clearinghouse [0166], the received first transaction ID [0024])
performing, by the one or more processors, and by the clearinghouse, a second claim processing transaction by the clearinghouse with a third party, wherein the second claim processing transaction is associated with processing the healthcare claim (Selwanes discloses performing, by the one or more processors [0139], and by the clearinghouse [0166], a second claim processing transaction [0262], [0015] by the clearinghouse [0166] a third party [0026], [0218], wherein the second claim processing transaction [0262], [0015], [0218] is associated with processing the healthcare claim [0115]-[0116], [0218])
and wherein the validated first transaction trace ID is used as a second transaction trace ID for the second claim processing transaction, (Selwanes discloses and wherein the validated first transaction trace ID [0183] is used as a second transaction trace ID [0024] for the second claim processing transaction [0262], [0015], [0129], [0218])
Selwanes fails to explicitly disclose and wherein the verifiable token comprises: (i) a HMAC (Hash-Based Message Authentication Code generated by the calling service based on a universally unique identifier (UUID) salted with a salt value as an input to a hashing algorithm; or (ii) an encrypted public key infrastructure (PKI) certificate, wherein the encrypted PKI certificate comprising the first transaction trace ID and the PKI certificate is decrypted by the clearinghouse using a public key provided by the calling service.
However, in an analogous art, Gaddam discloses and wherein the verifiable token comprises: (i) a HMAC (Hash-Based Message Authentication Code generated by the calling service based on a universally unique identifier (UUID) salted with a salt value as an input to a hashing algorithm;
or (ii) an encrypted public key infrastructure (PKI) certificate, wherein the encrypted PKI certificate comprising the first transaction trace ID and the PKI certificate is decrypted by the clearinghouse using a public key provided by the calling service (Gaddam discloses or (ii) an encrypted public key infrastructure (PKI) certificate [0005], [0090], wherein the encrypted PKI certificate [0005], [0090] comprising the first transaction trace ID [0021], [0027], [0029] and the PKI certificate [0005],[0090] is decrypted [0098] by the clearinghouse [0098] using a public key [0009] provided by the calling service [0005], [0009])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gaddam with the method/system of Selwanes to include and wherein the verifiable token comprises: (i) a HMAC (Hash-Based Message Authentication Code generated by the calling service based on a universally unique identifier (UUID) salted with a salt value as an input to a hashing algorithm; or (ii) an encrypted public key infrastructure (PKI) certificate, wherein the encrypted PKI certificate comprising the first transaction trace ID and the PKI certificate is decrypted by the clearinghouse using a public key provided by the calling service. One would have been motivated to enable de-tokenization within a system where there are multiple levels of tokenization, (Gaddam, [0021]).
Selwanes and Gaddam fail to explicitly disclose and determining, by the one or more processors, using a cryptographic key generated by the calling service, that the received first transaction trace ID is trusted.
However, in an analogous art, Peddada discloses and determining, by the one or more processors, using a cryptographic key generated by the calling service, that the received first transaction trace ID is trusted (Peddada discloses in FIG 5-FIG 6 and determining, by the one or more processors [0064], using a cryptographic key [0051], generated by the calling service [0056], [0035], [0043], that the received first API call message [0039], [0040] [transaction trace ID] is trusted [0058], FIG 5-FIG 6 where the cryptographic key is used to determine its trustworthiness by granting or denying access to the client system)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Peddada with the method/system of Selwanes and Gaddam to include and determining, by the one or more processors, using a cryptographic key generated by the calling service, that the received first transaction trace ID is trusted. One would have been motivated to provide authenticated electronic communications, and more particularly to authentication of networked application programming interface (API) communications (Peddada, [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a system. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Claim 21 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 28, Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada disclose the method of claim 1.
Gaddam further discloses wherein the verifiable token comprises the encrypted PKI certificate, and wherein the encrypted PKI certificate comprises the first transaction trace ID and the PKI certificate is decrypted by the clearinghouse using the public key provided by the calling service, (Gaddam discloses wherein the verifiable token [0005] comprises the encrypted PKI certificate [0005], [0090], and wherein the encrypted PKI certificate [0005], [0090] comprises the first transaction trace ID [0021], [0027], [0029], and the PKI certificate [0005],[0090] is decrypted [0098] by the clearinghouse [0098] using the public key [0009] provided by the calling service [0005], [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gaddam with the method/system of Selwanes to include wherein the verifiable token comprises the encrypted PKI certificate, and wherein the encrypted PKI certificate comprises the first transaction trace ID and the PKI certificate is decrypted by the clearinghouse using the public key provided by the calling service. One would have been motivated to enable de-tokenization within a system where there are multiple levels of tokenization, (Gaddam, [0021]).
Claims 5, 15-16, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwanes et al (“Selwanes,” US 20170329910), Gaddam et al (“Gaddam,” US 20160028550) in view of Peddada et al (“Peddada,” US 20170163618) and further in view of Li et al (“Li,” US 20230145485).
Regarding claim 5, Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada disclose the method of claim 1.
Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada fail to explicitly disclose wherein the hashing algorithm comprises secure hashing algorithm (SHA) 256 and wherein the salt value is unique to transactions between the calling service and the clearinghouse.
However, in an analogous art, Li discloses wherein the hashing algorithm comprises secure hashing algorithm (SHA) 256 and wherein the salt value is unique to transactions between the calling service and the clearinghouse, (Li, [0076], [0067]-[0068] describes wherein the hashing algorithm comprises a SHA 256 secure hashing algorithm and the salt is unique to transactions as described in [0100] between the calling service as described in [0021], [0028] and the clearinghouse described in [0104])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li with the method/system of Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada to include wherein the hashing algorithm comprises secure hashing algorithm (SHA) 256 and wherein the salt value is unique to transactions between the calling service and the clearinghouse. One would have been motivated to provide distributed data processing using a network based computing environment (Li, [0001]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to the system of claim 14. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to the system of claim 15. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is directed to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 21. Claim 23 is similar in scope to claim 5 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is directed to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 23. Claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwanes et al (“Selwanes,” US 20170329910), Gaddam et al (“Gaddam,” US 20160028550), Peddada et al (“Peddada,” US 20170163618), in view of Li et al (“Li,” US 20230145485) and further in view of Kolchin et al (“Kolchin,” US 20230052197).
Regarding claim 6, Selwanes, Gaddam, Peddada and Li disclose the method of claim 5.
Selwanes, Gaddam, Peddada and Li fail to explicitly disclose wherein the calling service shares the UUID and an identification of the hashing algorithm with the clearinghouse.
However, in an analogous art, Kolchin discloses wherein the calling service shares the UUID and an identification of the hashing algorithm with the clearinghouse (Kochin describes in [0062] wherein the API [calling service] shares the UUID [0027] and an identification of a hashing algorithm [0050] with the clearing house [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kochin with the method/system of Selwanes, Gaddam, Peddada and Li to include wherein the calling service shares the UUID and an identification of the hashing algorithm with the clearinghouse. One would have been motivated to conduct secure electronic financial transactions (Kochin, [0002]).
Claims 7, 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwanes et al (“Selwanes,” US 20170329910), Gaddam et al (“Gaddam,” US 20160028550), Peddada et al (“Peddada,” US 20170163618), Li et al (“Li,” US 20230145485) in view of Kolchin et al (“Kolchin,” US 20230052197) and further in view of Donner et al (“Donner,” US 7,562,028).
Regarding claim 7, Selwanes, Gaddam, Peddada, Li and Kolchin disclose the method of claim 6.
Selwanes, Gaddam, Peddada, Li and Kolchin fail to explicitly disclose wherein validating, by the clearinghouse, the received first transaction trace ID and determining that it is trusted comprises running the UUID appended or prepended with the salt value through the identified hashing algorithm and comparing a salting and hashing outcome of the clearinghouse to the HMAC, and wherein if the outcome matches the HMAC, then the UUID is validated and trusted as the first transaction trace ID.
However, in an analogous art, Donner discloses wherein validating, by the clearinghouse, the received first transaction trace ID and determining that it is trusted comprises running the UUID appended or prepended with the salt value through the identified hashing algorithm and comparing a salting and hashing outcome of the clearinghouse to the HMAC, and wherein if the outcome matches the HMAC, then the UUID is validated and trusted as the first transaction trace ID, (Donner discloses Column 392, Lines 27-41; Column 77, Lines 48-52; Col. 85, Lines 30-32 wherein validating, by the clearinghouse, the received first transaction trace ID and determining that it is trusted comprises running the UUID appended or prepended with the salt value through the identified hashing algorithm and comparing a salting and hashing outcome of the clearinghouse to the HMAC, and wherein if the outcome matches the HMAC, then the UUID is validated and trusted as the first transaction trace ID)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Donner with the method/system of Selwanes, Gaddam, Peddada, Li and Kolchin to include wherein validating, by the clearinghouse, the received first transaction trace ID and determining that it is trusted comprises running the UUID appended or prepended with the salt value through the identified hashing algorithm and comparing a salting and hashing outcome of the clearinghouse to the HMAC, and wherein if the outcome matches the HMAC, then the UUID is validated and trusted as the first transaction trace ID. One would have been motivated to provide purchasing and provisioning items or services online for reallocating and/or upgrading and/or rewarding tickets and/or goods or services (Donner, Col. 2, Lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is directed to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 24. Claim 25 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 9, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwanes et al (“Selwanes,” US 20170329910), Gaddam et al (“Gaddam,” US 20160028550) in view of Peddada et al (“Peddada,” US 20170163618) and further in view of Sarkanin et al (“Sarkanin,” JP2003531447A)
Regarding claim 9, Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada disclose the method of claim 1.
Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada fail to explicitly disclose wherein successful decryption of the PKI certificate by the clearinghouse using the public key provided by the calling service authenticates and validates the received first transaction trace ID.
However, in an analogous art, Sarkanin discloses wherein successful decryption of the PKI certificate by the clearinghouse using the public key provided by the calling service authenticates and validates the received first transaction trace ID, (Sarkanin, Page 4, Lines 32-51; Page 7, Lines 13-18; Page 20, Lines 19-26 describe wherein successful decryption of the PKI certificate by the clearinghouse using the public key of the API [calling service] authenticates and validates the transaction identifier Page 39, Lines 14-18; Page 16 next to last paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sarkanin with the method/system of Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada to include wherein successful decryption of the PKI certificate by the clearinghouse using the public key provided by the calling service authenticates and validates the received first transaction trace ID. One would have been motivated to provide an electronic commerce system and method using virtual smart cards and virtual safes (Sarkanin, Page 2, Line 28).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to the system of claim 12. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is directed to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 21. Claim 26 is similar in scope to claim 9 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 10, 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwanes et al (“Selwanes,” US 20170329910), Gaddam et al (“Gaddam,” US 20160028550), Peddada et al (“Peddada,” US 20170163618) in view of Sarkanin et al (“Sarkanin,” JP2003531447A) and further in view of Gropper et al (“Gropper,” US 20070027715).
Regarding claim 10, Selwanes, Gaddam, Peddada and Sarkanin disclose the method of claim 9.
Selwanes, Gaddam, Peddada and Sarkanin fail to explicitly disclose wherein the decrypted PKI certificate is re-encrypted by the clearinghouse and used as the second transaction trace ID for the second claim processing transaction, wherein the third party decrypts the re-encrypted PKI certificate using a public key provided by the clearinghouse, and wherein successful decryption of the PKI certificate by the third party using the public key provided by the clearinghouse authenticates and validates the received second transaction trace ID.
However, in an analogous art, Gropper discloses wherein the decrypted PKI certificate is re-encrypted by the clearinghouse and used as the second transaction trace ID for the second claim processing transaction, (Gropper discloses wherein the decrypted PKI certificate [0088], [0127] is re-encrypted by the clearinghouse [0076], [0054] and used as the second transaction trace ID [0070], for the second claim processing transaction, [0077])
wherein the third party decrypts the re-encrypted PKI certificate using a public key provided by the clearinghouse, (Gropper, wherein the third party [0274], decrypts the re-encrypted PKI certificate [0077] using a public key provided by the clearinghouse, [0088], [0054])
and wherein successful decryption of the PKI certificate by the third party using the public key provided by the clearinghouse authenticates and validates the received second transaction trace ID, (Gropper, wherein the third party [0274], decrypts the re-encrypted PKI certificate [0077] using a public key provided by the clearinghouse [0088], [0054])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gropper with the method/system of Selwanes, Gaddam, Peddada and Sarkanin to include wherein the decrypted PKI certificate is re-encrypted by the clearinghouse and used as the second transaction trace ID for the second claim processing transaction, wherein the third party decrypts the re-encrypted PKI certificate using a public key provided by the clearinghouse, and wherein successful decryption of the PKI certificate by the third party using the public key provided by the clearinghouse authenticates and validates the received second transaction trace ID. One would have been motivated to provide electronic distribution of healthcare information and the interchange of health information between different healthcare entities (Gropper, [0003]).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to the system of claim 19. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 10 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is directed to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26. Claim 27 is similar in scope to claim 10 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selwanes et al (“Selwanes,” US 20170329910), Gaddam et al (“Gaddam,” US 20160028550) in view of Peddada et al (“Peddada,” US 20170163618) and further in view of Kuris et al (“Kuris,” US 20170262659).
Regarding claim 28, Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada disclose the method of claim 1.
Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada fail to explicitly disclose wherein the verifiable token comprises the HMAC generated by the calling service based on the UUID salted with the salt value as the input to the hashing algorithm.
However, in an analogous art, Kuris discloses wherein the verifiable token comprises the HMAC generated by the calling service based on the UUID salted with the salt value as the input to the hashing algorithm, (Kuris discloses wherein the verifiable token [0005] comprises the HMAC [0005]-[0006], [0022], generated by the calling service [0020] based on the UUID [0020], [0039], salted with the salt value [0037], [0042]-[0043], as the input to the hashing algorithm [0022])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuris with the method/system of Selwanes, Gaddam and Peddada to include wherein the verifiable token comprises the HMAC generated by the calling service based on the UUID salted with the salt value as the input to the hashing algorithm. One would have been motivated to provide a tokenization mechanism in which each field of data is protected independent of the other fields such that a breach with respect to one field will not impact other fields of the same object
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached on (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439