DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Step 1
Claims 1 and 34-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 34-52 are directed towards an apparatus; thus, each of the pending claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1, representative of the claimed invention, recites the steps of perform a secret calculation on each of the plurality of information pieces of the immunity certificate stored in the storage to generate a result of the calculation, the result of the calculation indicating a level to which a person is suffering from a specific infectious disease or is susceptible thereto; and output the result of the calculation.
The limitations above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes. The claimed steps recite several steps that include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, and “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” which have been considered by the courts to be a mental process. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Apart from the use of generic technology (discussed further below), each of the limitations recited above describes activities that would encompass actions performed in performing calculations on a plurality of information pieces to generate a result. The recited steps are considered to be a mental process as methods that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1, 41, and 50 recite the additional elements of a processor and a memory. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, performing calculations, and providing/transmitting information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. 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 using a processor to perform the steps of “perform a secret calculation on each of the plurality of information pieces of the immunity certificate stored in the storage to generate a result of the calculation, the result of the calculation indicating a level to which a person is suffering from a specific infectious disease or is susceptible thereto; and output the result of the calculation.” 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.
Similarly, use of a computer performing a machine learning model is a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f): “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” An example where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instruction to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process includes a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, even considering the additional elements in combination, the claims do not include elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claims 1, 41, and 50 are not similar to any of these limitations.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 41, and 50 recite additional elements that are regarded as “apply it” as seen in the Step 2A Prong 2 discussion above. The claims do not set forth a solution to a problem rooted in technology (e.g., technical solution), as collecting and analyzing user behavior to identify deficiencies and recommendations to correct or remedy said deficiencies predate the use of computers or machine learning models.
Looking at the limitations of claims 1, 41, and 50 as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, effects a transformation of subject matter to a different state or thing, applies the use of a particular machine, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, claims 1, 41, and 50 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea and do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. None of dependent claims 34-40, 42-49, or 51-52 recite any further additional elements.
Dependent claims 34-40, 42-49, or 51-52 further narrow the scope of the abstract idea in claims 1, 41, and 50 by providing additional information or considerations used in the analysis.
Thus, claims 1 and 34-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 34-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0365445 to Robell et al.
As to claim 1, Robell discloses an information system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store storing instructions (Robell claim 14); and
at least one processor (Robell claim 14) configured to execute the instructions to:
store an immunity certificate in storage as a plurality of information pieces (Robell [0081] see Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.);
perform a secret calculation on each of the plurality of information pieces of the immunity certificate stored in the storage to generate a result of the calculation, the result of the calculation indicating a level to which a person is suffering from a specific infectious disease or is susceptible thereto (Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.” Wherein decryption of the vaccination data results in a secret calculation on each of the plurality of information pieces of the immunity certificate stored in the storage to generate a result of the calculation, the result of the calculation indicating a level to which a person is suffering from a specific infectious disease or is susceptible thereto); and
output the result of the calculation (Robell [0044] see reports).
store, when the immunity certificate stored in the storage is updated, update information of the immunity certificate as a hash value related to the immunity certificate in update information storage thereto (Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.” see also [0051] CTS portal allowing update information.); and
output the update information stored in the update information storage (Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.” see also [0051] CTS portal allowing update information.);.
As to claim 34, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one processor is further configured to change the level indicated by the result of the calculation in response to changes in the information contained in the immunity certificate (Robell [0081] where the update to the report is based on changes in CTS data; see also [0051]).
As to claim 35, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the storage stores the hash value of the immunity certificate by incorporating the hash value into a transaction of a blockchain (Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.”).
As to claim 36, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the immunity certificate contains a digital signature, and the at least one processor is further configured to:
store the digital signature by incorporating the digital signature into update information of the immunity certificate Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.”); and
output the update information containing the digital signature Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.”).
As to claim 37, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive update data of the immunity certificate from another terminal (Robell [0020] see error detection and correction); and
when receiving the update data, transmit information for notifying the other terminal of a caution about transmission of the update data (Robell [0020] see error detection and correction).
As to claim 38, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
acquire at least one of an algorithm and a parameter used for the secret calculation Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; and
when acquiring the algorithm or the parameter, update a previous algorithm or a previous parameter used for the secret calculation with one acquired Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”;.
As to claim 39, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein
the immunity certificate contains a movement history of an individual (Robell [0017] see contact tracing; see also [0079] and [0081]), and
the at least one processor is further configured to perform the secret calculation by using movement histories of individuals, contained in a plurality of immunity certificates, and thereby acquire a contact history between individuals as the result of the secret calculation (Robell [0017] see contact tracing; see also [0079] and [0081]).
As to claim 40, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein
the immunity certificate further contains infected-person information indicating whether or not an individual is infected with a specific infectious disease (Robell [0017] see contact tracing; see also [0079] and [0081]), and
the at least one processor is further configured to acquire, by performing the secret calculation using the infected-person information, a history indicating whether or not an individual has come into contact with an infected person as a contact history between individuals (Robell [0017] see contact tracing; see also [0079] and [0081]).
As to claim 41, Robell discloses an information terminal comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions(Robell claim 14); and
at least one processor (Robell claim 14)configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire information based on an immunity certificate of an individual, the information indicating a level to which a person is suffering from a specific infectious disease or is susceptible thereto (Robell [0081] see Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual);
receive a hash value of the immunity certificate from another apparatus as an update history of the immunity certificate indicating genuineness of the immunity certificate(Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.”); and
determine, based on the hash value, validity of the information based on the immunity certificate (Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.”).
As to claim 42, see the discussion of claim 41, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
acquire issuer information of the immunity certificate (Robell paragraph [0081] see “As examples, the vaccination data for a particular individual may include whether the individual has been vaccinated (e.g., stored as a Boolean value such a true or false), the type of vaccine administered to the individual, vaccine manufacturer, dates of vaccination, whether multiple doses are required for the vaccine, number of doses required for the vaccine, whether the individual followed through on a second or any other follow-up vaccination doses (if necessary), whether any booster shots were administered, location(s) where vaccine (or individual doses) are administered, personnel who administered the vaccination (or individual doses), and/or the like”);
receive genuine issuer information from an issuer information management server (Robell paragraph [0081] see “As examples, the vaccination data for a particular individual may include whether the individual has been vaccinated (e.g., stored as a Boolean value such a true or false), the type of vaccine administered to the individual, vaccine manufacturer, dates of vaccination, whether multiple doses are required for the vaccine, number of doses required for the vaccine, whether the individual followed through on a second or any other follow-up vaccination doses (if necessary), whether any booster shots were administered, location(s) where vaccine (or individual doses) are administered, personnel who administered the vaccination (or individual doses), and/or the like”); and
determine, based on the issuer information and the genuine issuer information, validity of the information based on the immunity certificate (Robell paragraph [0081] see “As examples, the vaccination data for a particular individual may include whether the individual has been vaccinated (e.g., stored as a Boolean value such a true or false), the type of vaccine administered to the individual, vaccine manufacturer, dates of vaccination, whether multiple doses are required for the vaccine, number of doses required for the vaccine, whether the individual followed through on a second or any other follow-up vaccination doses (if necessary), whether any booster shots were administered, location(s) where vaccine (or individual doses) are administered, personnel who administered the vaccination (or individual doses), and/or the like”).
As to claim 43, see the discussion of claim 41, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one processor is further configured to acquire the information based on the immunity certificate through photographing (Robell [0069]).
As to claim 44, see the discussion of claim 41, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
authenticate an individual by acquiring personal information (Robell [0069] and [0081]); and
determine reliability of an individual based on validity of the information based on the immunity certificate and the result of the authentication (Robell [0069] and [0081]).
As to claim 45, see the discussion of claim 41, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
acquire immunity certificate information(Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.”);
divide the immunity certificate information into a plurality of information pieces(Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.”); and
transmit a plurality of information pieces to another apparatus(Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.”).
As to claim 46, see the discussion of claim 42, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to detect location information of an individual through wireless communication, and thereby acquire a location history (Robell [0055]).
As to claim 47, see the discussion of claim 42, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to acquire a vital sign of an individual as the immunity certificate information.
As to claim 48, see the discussion of claim 41, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform a pseudonymization process on the plurality of information pieces to be transmitted.
As to claim 49, see the discussion of claim 41, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
store at least one of the immunity certificate information or information related to the immunity certificate information in storage (Robell [0044] see reports); and
display at least one of the immunity certificate information or the information related to the immunity certificate information stored in the storage (Robell [0044] see reports).
As to claim 50, Robell discloses an immunity certificate management system comprising:
an information system (Robell claim 14); and
an information terminal (Robell claim 14)configured to communicate with the information system, wherein
the information system comprises:
at least one first memory (Robell claim 14) storing instructions; and
at least one first processor (Robell claim 14)configured to execute the instructions to:
store an immunity certificate in storage as a plurality of information pieces(Robell [0081] see Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual);
perform a secret calculation on each of the plurality of information pieces of the immunity certificate stored in the storage to generate a result of the calculation, the result of the calculation indicating a level to which a person is suffering from a specific infectious disease or is susceptible thereto(Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.” Wherein decryption of the vaccination data results in a secret calculation on each of the plurality of information pieces of the immunity certificate stored in the storage to generate a result of the calculation, the result of the calculation indicating a level to which a person is suffering from a specific infectious disease or is susceptible thereto);
transmit the result of the calculation (Robell [0044] see reports);
store, when the immunity certificate stored in the storage is updated, update information of the immunity certificate as a hash value related to the immunity certificate in update information storage (Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.” see also [0051] CTS portal allowing update information.); and
output the update information stored in the update information storage(Robell [0081] where the update to the report is based on changes in CTS data; see also [0051]), and
the information terminal comprises:
at least one second memory storing instructions (Robell [0069]); and
at least one second processor (Robell [0069]) configured to execute the instructions to:
receive the result of the calculation (Robell [0067]).
As to claim 51, see the discussion of claim 50, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein the at least one second processor is configured to specify a target to which a notification should be issued based on the result of the calculation (Robell [0067]).
As to claim 52, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Robell discloses the information system wherein
the at least one processor is configured to: perform the secret calculation on each of the plurality of information pieces of the immunity certificate without reproducing original contents of the immunity certificate; and combine the results of the secret calculation on each of the plurality of information pieces to generate the result of the calculation (Robell [0079] see “Furthermore, one or more CTS servers 155 may hash, digitally sign, and/or encrypt/decrypt data using, for example, a cryptographic hash algorithm”; [0081] see “The CTS DB 156 stores a plurality of database objects (DBOs). The DBOs may be arranged in a set of logical tables containing data fitted into predefined or customizable categories, and/or the DBOs may be arranged in a set of blockchains or ledgers wherein each block (or DBO) in the blockchain is linked to a previous block.” And “Additionally or alternatively, the CTS DB 156 may store vaccination-related data, which may be used to exclude individuals from CTS reports 123 when the vaccination data indicates that those individuals have been vaccinated prior to contact with a potentially infected individual.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 34-52 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eliza Lam whose telephone number is (571)270-7052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30PST.
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 Choi can be reached at 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.
/ELIZA A LAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681