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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on November 26th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 23 have been amended and claims 7, 10, 11 an d13 - 22 have been cancelled. Claims 1- 6, 8, 9, 12 and 23 – 27 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §112(d)
3. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 11
35 U.S.C. §101
4. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 6 -7, filed November 26th, 2025, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1- 6, 8, 9, 12 and 23 – 27 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the independent claims cannot be performed in the human mind and lists various steps to make their point.
Examiner agrees some of the steps listed may not be able to be performed in the human mind but they are merely data gathering steps that can be performed on generic computer and as such do not lead to an improvement in computer technology. These steps are, namely, 1. Executing by a processor …. 2. Storing a unique code … 3. Sending a query … 4. Receiving a response to a query … 5. Sending a query and a hash code.
Secondly, precedential weight is given to PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021) when the Federal Circuit held that assigning each data item in a database a content-based identifier used to perform various data management functions was directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Particularly, the court noted that content identifiers and indexes that organize records in a database by identifiable tags were an abstract idea (e.g. a mental process). Id. at 1316. This included generating such identifiers using a generic hash function. Additionally, the court also held that the data-management function including “retrieving data items” based on assigned identifiers, is also an abstract idea. Id. at 1317 citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1327 ("abstract idea of creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data").
In the application at bar, claim limitations are directed to assigning a unique identifier and executing a hash function on the identifier, are abstract as mental processes and/or math for the same reasons as provided in PersonalWeb. Additionally, just like in PersonalWeb, the limitations here of merely storing/indexing data by the unique identifier and retrieving data based on such identifiers would not render the claim eligible for the same reasons as given by the court in PersonalWeb, as these data management functions are either abstract or do not provide significantly more. Therefore the statutory rejection is maintained
35 U.S.C. §103
5. The crux of applicant’s arguments is that the amendments to the independent claims are not taught by the art of record.
Examiner respectfully agrees
Upon further consideration new grounds of rejection have been necessitated due
to Applicant's amendments and are made in view of Lazovic et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2018/0285417) hereinafter Lazovic
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101
6. 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 – 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 23 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature , a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea.) without significantly more.
The claims are analyzed for subject matter eligibility using a two-part subject matter eligibility analysis (MPEP 2016).
Independent claim 1 recites “a method of assigning a unique identifier to an entity, comprising …” and as such falls within one of the statutory categories of patentability.
Step 2a Prong 1
Independent claim 1 is however rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim
recites, “assigning the unique identifier to the entity, the unique identifier comprising: a domain portion defining a jurisdiction of the entity; a sub-domain portion comprising: a designation of an entity type of the entity; an agency code for a legal authority holding a registration for the entity within said jurisdiction; and a date of registration or formation of the entity; and a registration identifier portion of said entity in said jurisdiction, wherein said unique identifier complies with ISO 8000-116 standard when the entity is a legal entity and has been granted legal status by a governing body of a nation, state, or community; and wherein components of the unique identifier are in an order consisting of: the domain portion, followed by the designation of the entity type, followed by the agency code, followed by the date of registration or formation, followed by the registration identifier portion, wherein the domain portion and the sub-domain portion are separated by a period ("."), the sub-domain portion and the registration identifier portion are separated by a colon (":"); executing a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) hash function on the unique identifier, resulting in a unique hash code.” These limitations may be properly identified as reciting the abstract idea of a “mental processes.” Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) falls within the grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Using a pen and paper one can assign an identifier to an entity and furthermore one can mentally deduce the composition of a unique identifier where constituent parts comprise various attributes and the order within which such constituent parts are arranged and the presence of separation tags involved. Secondly executing a hash function to produce a hash code is a mathematical concept that forms part of an abstract idea. An abstract idea upon an abstract idea is still an abstract idea and as such falls within the mental grouping of an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because firstly, the additional recitations of, “receiving a name of the entity and associated information about the entity” and “and storing said unique hash code along with the name of said entity in a database for fast retrieval of information about said entity; entity, the database being a cloud-based storage system; receiving a query, the query having a form of "Who is" and the unique hash code; and sending the query and the unique hash code to the database; receiving, from the database in response to the query and the unique hash code, the name of the entity and information about the entity, the information comprising an entity status of the entity, wherein the (1) sending of the query and the unique hash code and (2) the receiving of the name of the entity and the information about the entity (a) use multiple Application Program Interface (API) endpoints, and (b) occur via batch transmissions” are mere data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality. The courts have held that 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) have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Step 2B
The additional elements of, “receiving a name of the entity and associated information about the entity” and “and storing said unique hash code along with the name of said entity in a database for fast retrieval of information about said entity” are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held 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)) do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Reference is made to Alex Roetter (United States Patent Publication Number 20050273388) hereinafter Roetter that teaches “’ compute a hash value [0074]”, “The GUID may be an identifier that is essentially guaranteed to be globally unique. The
GUID ensures that a hash value generated upon a conversion for each advertiser is also unique. [0077]” and “store the code [0079]”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein said domain portion complies with ISO 3 166-1 and ISO 3 166-2 standards.” An observation of a part of an identifier and concluding it complies with a standard is an evaluation that can be mentally performed.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein said jurisdiction of the entity comprises (1) a jurisdiction country of said entity and (2) a jurisdiction state or region in the jurisdiction country of said entity.” Evaluating the jurisdiction component part of an entity and concluding it comprises of specific attributes is an observation that can be done mentally. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
dependent claim 3 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein said jurisdiction country complies with ISO 3166-1 standard and said jurisdiction state or region complies with ISO 3166-2 standard.” Evaluating the jurisdiction component part of an entity and concluding it is in compliance with a standard is an observation that can be done mentally. An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the registration identifier portion for said jurisdiction comprises a plurality of characters or numbers, or both.” Observing a plurality of alphanumeric characters in an identifier can also be mentally derived.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the registration identifier portion comprises a plurality of characters or numbers, or both.” Observing a plurality of alphanumeric characters in an identifier can also be mentally derived.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the domain portion and the sub-domain portion form a prefix of the unique identifier, and the registration identifier portion forms a suffix of the unique identifier.” Observing how attributes are concatenated can be observed as a mental processes.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
dependent claim 8 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the prefix and the suffix of the unique identifier are separated by a colon (":") character.” Observing how a prefix and a suffix are concatenated can be observed as a mental processes.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the unique identifier further includes another portion including any one of a metropolitan area, a county, a city, a borough, or a region within a jurisdiction country of the entity.” Evaluating the portions of an identifier and concluding its makeup is that of a geographic region can be observed as a mental processes.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 23 corresponds to independent claim 1 but for the recitation of, “a system of assigning and storing a unique identifier to an entity in a database, comprising: a computer system configured to..” These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of “a system of assigning and storing a unique identifier to an entity in a database, comprising: a computer system configured to:.” That is, other than reciting " a system of assigning and storing a unique identifier to an entity in a database, comprising: a computer system configured to," nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 23 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the unique identifier further includes another portion disposed between the domain portion and the sub-domain portion, said another portion further refining the jurisdiction of the entity.” Observing the positional relationships of attributes in an identifier can be observed as a mental processes.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 23 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein said database is configured to receive a query from a client computer to provide the information about the entity using said unique identifier.” Receiving a query to a database from a client is a mere data gathering step and is recited at a high level of generality. Such steps are basic computer functions and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
Step 2B
The additional elements of, “wherein said database is configured to receive a query from a client computer to provide the information about the entity using said unique identifier” when considered separately and in combination does not amount to a patentable application of the abstract idea. Such recitation of receiving a query by a database are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology, therefore receiving a query to a database are insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have held 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)). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity e.g. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Reference is made to which teaches “Processing may begin with a client 110 accessing server 120 via network 150 and receiving a UI for entering a search query. Assume that the user enters a search query and transmits the search query to server 120. [0083]”
These claim limitations, when considered individually and in combination and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 23 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the sub-domain portion has an order of:(1) the designation of the entity type;(2) the agency code; and(3) the date of registration or formation.” Evaluating the order of a portion of an identifier can be observed as a mental processes.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim depends from
independent claim 1 and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A
The claim recites, “wherein the sub-domain portion has an order of:(1) the designation of the entity type;(2) the agency code; and(3) the date of registration or formation.” Evaluating the order of a portion of an identifier can be observed as a mental processes.
An abstract idea upon another abstract idea is still an abstract idea, thus the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").
These claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes , then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ
459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 1 – 6, 8, 9, 12 and 23 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Noel Abela (United States Patent Publication Number 20030177356) hereinafter Abela, in view of Justin S. Magruder, “Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier” chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://mroinsyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ALEI-The-Authoritative-Legal-Entity-Identifier-June-7-2018.pdf, June 7th 2018 hereinafter Magruder in view of Alex Roetter (United States Patent Publication Number 20050273388) hereinafter Roetter and in further view of Lazovic et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 2018/0285417) hereinafter Lazovic
Regarding claim 1 Abela teaches a method (method [0051]) of assigning a unique identifier (concatenating country code and unique key to produce a worldwide unique identifier to identify individuals [0059]) such as “assigning” to an entity, (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) comprising: receiving a name (name of any particular uID identifier [0107]) of the entity(persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) and associated information (This information can include his/her date of birth, mother's name, and maiden surname among other details with subsequent password [0114]) about the entity; (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) assigning (concatenating country code and unique key to produce a worldwide unique identifier to identify individuals [0059]) such as “assigning” the unique identifier(worldwide unique identifier [0059]) to the entity, (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) the unique identifier (worldwide unique identifier [0059]) comprising: a domain portion (Fig. 2A (201) Country Code [0058]) defining a jurisdiction (an established country code standard. [0058]) of the entity; (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) agency code(global uID authority [0070]) for a legal authority holding a registration for the entity within for said jurisdiction, (an established country code standard. [0058]) and a date of registration or formation (moment of activation of one’s uID user account [0113]) of the entity; (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) a registration identifier portion (This information can include his/her date of birth, mother's name, and maiden surname among other details with subsequent password [0114])/( If the present method and system will be using Public-Key Cryptography mentioned earlier on, the uID user will need to execute a procedure that will generate his/her private key. The public key would be in the user's uID record in the uID database [0115]) of said entity (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) in said jurisdiction; (an established country code standard. [0058])
Abela does not fully disclose wherein said unique identifier complies with ISO 8000-116 standard when the entity is a legal entity and has been granted legal status by a governing body of a nation, state, or community; wherein components of the unique identifier are in an order consisting of: the domain portion, followed by the designation of the entity type, followed by the agency code, followed by the date of registration (formation), followed by the registration identifier portion; wherein the domain portion and the sub-domain portion are separated by a period ("."), the sub-domain portion and the registration identifier portion are separated by a colon (":"); executing via at least one processor of a computer system a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) hash function on the unique identifier, resulting in a unique hash code which is a 128-bit integer number; and storing said unique hash code along with the name of said entity in a database for fast retrieval of information about said entity, the database being a cloud-based storage system: receiving, at the computer system, a query, the query having a form of "Who is" and the unique hash code: and sending, via the at least one processor, the query and the unique hash code to the database receiving, from the database in response to the query and the unique hash code, the name of the entity and information about the entity, the information comprising an entity status of the entity, wherein the (1) sending of the query and the unique hash code and (2) the receiving of the name of the entity and the information about the entity (a) use multiple Application Program Interface (API) endpoints, and (b) occur via batch transmissions.
Magruder teaches wherein said unique identifier (Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier – an ALEI Page 2) complies with ISO 8000-116 standard (ISO 8000 compliant, Page 2) when the entity is a legal entity and has been granted legal status (It is valid as soon as a legal entity has been formed or born until the time the entity ceases to exist, and even then, is usable to identify prior activity Page 2) by a governing body of a nation, state, or community; (Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) Page 1) such as “governing body” and wherein components of the unique identifier (Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier – an ALEI Page 2) are in an order consisting of: the domain portion, (country where company was first registered e.g. US Page 3) followed by the designation of the entity type, (Company or Organization/ Individual Page 3) followed by the agency code, (Issuing Agency of the Birth Certificate (if an individual) Page 3) followed by the date of registration or formation, (The ALEI is a simple, unique ID that identifies the organization or person that was formed or born on a
certain date in a certain place. 3) followed by the registration identifier portion (The unique identifier assigned when your company was first registered/Unique birth certificate number Page 3)wherein the domain portion and the sub-domain portion are separated by a period ("."), (ALEI Examples: US-CA.BER; US-DE.BER; US-NY.QNYC; US-HI.DH and US-MS.BH Page 2) the sub-domain portion and the registration identifier portion are separated by a colon (":"); (ALEI Examples: BER:C0806592; BER:3673342; BER:3482342; DH-BRS:7624; DH:151.61-10641 and BH:19351836 Page 2) the name of the entity (Legal Entity Apple Computer, Amazon Services International, Presidient Donald Trump, President Barack Obama and Elvis Aaron Presly Page 2) and information about the entity, the information comprising an entity status of the entity, (company or organization or individual Page 3) of the name of the entity (Legal Entity Apple Computer, Amazon Services International, Presidient Donald Trump, President Barack Obama and Elvis Aaron Presly Page 2)and the information about the entity (company or organization or individual Page 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela to incorporate the teachings of Magruder wherein said unique identifier complies with ISO 8000-116 standard when the entity is a legal entity and has been granted legal status by a governing body of a nation, state, or community; and wherein components of the unique identifier are in an order consisting of: the domain portion, followed by the designation of the entity type, followed by the agency code, followed by the date of registration or formation, followed by the registration identifier portion, wherein the domain portion and the sub-domain portion are separated by a period ("."), the sub-domain portion and the registration identifier portion are separated by a colon (":")the name of the entity and information about the entity, the information comprising an entity status of the entity, of the name of the entity and the information about the entity. By doing so the ALEI as a simple, unique ID can identify the organization or person that was formed or born on a certain date in a certain place. Magruder Page 2.
Roetter teaches executing a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) hash function (compute a hash value [0074]; the function that generates the hash value [0081]) on the unique identifier, (The GUID may be an identifier that is essentially guaranteed to be globally unique. The GUID ensures that a hash value generated upon a conversion for each advertiser is also unique. [0077]) resulting in a unique hash code; (hash value [0077]) and storing (store [0079]) said unique hash code(hash value [0077]) along with the name of said entity (image or text of entity ]0104]) in a database for fast retrieval of information (Server 140 may store information associated with the conversion, such as the value, type [0064]) about said entity. (image or text of entity ]0104])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela in view of Magruder to incorporate the teachings of Roetter wherein executing a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) hash function on the unique identifier, resulting in a unique hash code; and storing said unique hash code along with the name of said entity in a database for fast retrieval of information about said entity. By doing so generating hash values and using unique IDs to determine if a conversion is valid. Roetter [0109]
Lazovic teaches the database being a cloud-based storage system: (in a cloud computing environment. [0035]) receiving, at the computer system, a query, (The database computer system 210 may further include a database engine 214A. The database engine 214A may comprise any appropriate combination of software and/or hardware that is capable of both receiving queries associated with the databases 212, as well as performing any applicable operations with respect to such queries and databases (e.g., building an appropriate response to a particular query). [0041]) the query having a form of "Who is" (a given parameterized query [0048]) and the unique hash code: (query text hashes, query template hashes, and query plan hashes. [0046]) and sending, via the at least one processor, (one or more processors [0023]) the query (the query [0048]) and the unique hash code (query text hashes, query template hashes, and query plan hashes. [0046]) to the database ( the database 212 [0046]) receiving, from the database ( the database 212 [0046])in response to the query (the query [0048])and the unique hash code, (query text hashes, query template hashes, and query plan hashes. [0046]) wherein the (1) sending of the query (the query [0048])and the unique hash code (query text hashes, query template hashes, and query plan hashes. [0046])and (2) the receiving (a) use multiple Application Program Interface (API) endpoints, (The user interface 112 may include output mechanisms 112A as well as input mechanisms 112B [0027]) such as “Application Program Interface (API) endpoints” and (b) occur via batch transmissions. (Fig. 3 Query 302A – query 302U which may have different parameters [0012], [0049], [0050]) such as “batch queries”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela in view Magruder and Roetter of to incorporate the teachings of Lazovic wherein the database being a cloud-based storage system: receiving, at the computer system, a query, the query having a form of "Who is" and the unique hash code: and sending, via the at least one processor, the query and the unique hash code to the database receiving, from the database in response to the query and the unique hash code, the name of the entity and information about the entity, the information comprising an entity status of the entity, wherein the (1) sending of the query and the unique hash code and (2) the receiving of (a) use multiple Application Program Interface (API) endpoints, and (b) occur via batch transmissions. By doing so the workload of the one or more databases may be associated with a plurality of queries. Lazovic [0004]
Regarding claim 2 Abela in view of Magruder Roetter and Lazovic teaches the method according to claim 1,
Abela as modified further teaches wherein said domain portion(Fig. 2A (201) Country Code [0058]) complies with ISO 3166-1 (The 150-3166 standard also accommodates a 3-letter code and a 3-digit numeric code. [0058]) and ISO 3166-2 standards (It would be most convenient to represent country code 201 by the two-letter, ISO-3166 standard. [0058])
Regarding claim 3 Abela in view of Magruder Roetter and Lazovic teaches the method according to claim 1,
Abela as modified further teaches wherein said jurisdiction (an established country code standard. [0058]) of the entity(persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) comprises a jurisdiction country (country identifier [0058]) of said entity (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) and jurisdiction state (state code [0058]) or region in the jurisdiction country (country identifier [0058]) of said entity (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”)
Regarding claim 4 Abela in view of Magruder Roetter and Lazovic teaches the method according to claim 3,
Abela as modified further teaches wherein said jurisdiction country (country identifier [0058]) complies with ISO 3166-1 standard (The 1S0-3166 standard also accommodates a 3-letter code and a 3-digit numeric code. [0058]) and said jurisdiction state (state code [0058]) or region complies with ISO 3166-2 standard. (It would be most convenient to represent country code 201 by the two-letter, ISO-3166 standard. [0058])
Regarding claim 5 Abela in view of Magruder Roetter and Lazovic teaches the method according to claim 1,
Abela as modified further teaches wherein the registration identifier portion (This information can include his/her date of birth, mother's name, and maiden surname among other details with subsequent password [0114])/( If the present method and system will be using Public-Key Cryptography mentioned earlier on, the uID user will need to execute a procedure that will generate his/her private key. The public key would be in the user's uID record in the uID database [0115]) for said jurisdiction (an established country code standard. [0058]) comprises a plurality of characters or numbers, or both (this part of the uID identifier should allow for an alphanumeric type field, which may be variable in length. [0058])
Regarding claim 6 Abela in view of Magruder Roetter and Lazovic teaches the method according to claim 1,
Abela as modified further teaches, wherein the registration identifier portion (This information can include his/her date of birth, mother's name, and maiden surname among other details with subsequent password [0114])/( If the present method and system will be using Public-Key Cryptography mentioned earlier on, the uID user will need to execute a procedure that will generate his/her private key. The public key would be in the user's uID record in the uID database [0115]) comprises a plurality of characters or numbers, or both. (this part of the uID identifier should allow for an alphanumeric type field, which may be variable in length. [0058])
Regarding claim 8 Abela in view of Magruder Roetter and Lazovic teaches the method according to claim 1,
Abela as modified further teaches wherein the domain portion(Fig. 2A (201) Country Code [0058]) and sub-domain portion (Fig. 2A (203) Variable length ID identifier unique in the county or origin [0058]) form a prefix (and uID Group Codes [0063]) of the unique identifier, (worldwide unique identifier [0059]) and the registration identifier portion(This information can include his/her date of birth, mother's name, and maiden surname among other details with subsequent password [0114])/( If the present method and system will be using Public-Key Cryptography mentioned earlier on, the uID user will need to execute a procedure that will generate his/her private key. The public key would be in the user's uID record in the uID database [0115]) forms a suffix (Fig. 2C Country Codes [0063]) of the unique identifier (worldwide unique identifier [0059])
Regarding claim 9 Abela in view of Magruder Roetter and Lazovic teaches the method according to claim 8,
Abela does not fully disclose wherein the prefix and the suffix of the unique identifier are separated by a colon (":") character.
Magruder teaches wherein the prefix and the suffix of the unique identifier are separated by a colon (":") character. (Business Entity Register/Issuing Agency of the Birth Certificate is separated from the Unique identifier/unique birth certificate by a colon Page 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela in view of Roetter and Lazovic to incorporate the teachings of Magruder wherein the prefix and the suffix of the unique identifier are separated by a colon (":") character. By doing so the ALEI is a string of alpha-numeric characters that uniquely represent an entity by describing the place of formation, for an organization, or place of birth, for an individual, followed by the unique identifier that was assigned to that organization or person at inception. Magruder Page 3.
Regarding claim 12 Abela in view of Magruder Roetter and Lazovic teaches the method according to claim 1,
Abela does not fully disclose wherein the unique identifier further includes another portion including any one of a metropolitan area, a county, a city, a borough, or a region within a jurisdiction country of the entity.
Magruder teaches wherein the unique identifier(Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier – an ALEI Page 2) further includes another portion including any one of a metropolitan area, a county, a city, a borough, (“QNYC” Queens, N.Y. Page 3) or a region within a jurisdiction country (“US” United States Page 3) of the entity (legal entity e.g. “Apple Computer”, “Amazon”, “President Donald Trump”, “President Barack Obama” and ”Elvis Aaron Presley” Page 3.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela in view of Roetter and Lazovic to incorporate the teachings of Magruder wherein the unique identifier further includes another portion including any one of a metropolitan area, a county, a city, a borough, or a region within a jurisdiction country of the entity. By doing so the ALEI is a simple, unique ID that identifies the organization or person that was formed or born on a certain date in a certain place. Magruder Page 3
Regarding claim 23 Abela teaches a system (system [0051]) of assigning
(concatenating country code and unique key to produce a worldwide unique identifier to identify individuals [0059]) such as “assigning” and storing (store [0067])a unique identifier (unique key to produce a worldwide unique identifier to identify individuals [0059])) to an entity(persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) in a database, (uID database server [0069]) comprising: a computer system (system [0051]) configured to assign (concatenating country code and unique key to produce a worldwide unique identifier to identify individuals [0059]) such as “assigning” the unique identifier (unique key to produce a worldwide unique identifier to identify individuals [0059]))to the entity, (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”) the unique identifier (unique key to produce a worldwide unique identifier to identify individuals [0059])) comprising: a domain portion (Fig. 2A (201) Country Code [0058] defining a jurisdiction(an established country code standard. [0058]) of the entity; (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”a sub-domain portion comprising: a designation of an entity type of the entity; (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”an agency code for a legal authority holding a registration (global uID authority [0070]) for the entity (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062” within said jurisdiction; (an established country code standard. [0058])and a date of registration (formation) (moment of activation of one’s uID user account [0113]) of the entity; (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”a registration identifier portion (This information can include his/her date of birth, mother's name, and maiden surname among other details with subsequent password [0114])/( If the present method and system will be using Public-Key Cryptography mentioned earlier on, the uID user will need to execute a procedure that will generate his/her private key. The public key would be in the user's uID record in the uID database [0115])of said entity(persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062” in said jurisdiction, (an established country code standard. [0058])
Abela does not fully disclose wherein components of the unique identifier
are in an order consisting of: the domain portion, followed by the designation of the entity type, followed by the agency code, followed by the date of registration (formation), followed by the registration identifier portion, wherein the domain portion and the sub-domain portion are separated by a period ("."), the sub-domain portion and the registration identifier portion are separated by a colon (":"); the computer system further configured to execute a GUID hash function on the unique identifier, resulting in a unique hash code; and the database in communication with the computer system configured to store said unique hash code along with a name of said entity in the database for fast retrieval of information about said entity; the database being a cloud-based storage system: receiving, at the computer system, a query, the query having a form of "Who is" and the unique hash code: and sending, via the at least one processor, the query and the unique hash code to the database receiving, from the database in response to the query and the unique hash code, the name of the entity and information about the entity, the information comprising an entity status of the entity, wherein the (1) sending of the query and the unique hash code and (2) the receiving of the name of the entity and the information about the entity (a) use multiple Application Program Interface (API) endpoints, and (b) occur via batch transmissions.
Magruder teaches wherein components of the unique identifier (Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier – an ALEI Page 2) are in an order consisting of: the domain portion, (country where company was first registered e.g. US Page 3) followed by the designation of the entity type, (Company or Organization/ Individual Page 3) followed by the agency code, (Issuing Agency of the Birth Certificate (if an individual) Page 3) followed by the date of registration (formation), (The ALEI is a simple, unique ID that identifies the organization or person that was formed or born on a certain date in a certain place. 3) followed by the registration identifier portion, (The unique identifier assigned when your company was first registered/Unique birth certificate number Page 3) wherein the domain portion and the sub-domain portion are separated by a period ("."), (ALEI Examples: US-CA.BER; US-DE.BER; US-NY.QNYC; US-HI.DH and US-MS.BH Page 2) the sub-domain portion and the registration identifier portion are separated by a colon (":"); (ALEI Examples: BER:C0806592; BER:3673342; BER:3482342; DH-BRS:7624; DH:151.61-10641 and BH:19351836 Page 2)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela to incorporate the teachings of Magruder wherein components of the unique identifier are in an order consisting of: the domain portion, followed by the designation of the entity type, followed by the agency code, followed by the date of registration or formation, followed by the registration identifier portion, wherein the domain portion and the sub-domain portion are separated by a period ("."), the sub-domain portion and the registration identifier portion are separated by a colon (":"). By doing so the ALEI as a simple, unique ID can identify the organization or person that was formed or born on a certain date in a certain place. Magruder Page 2.
Roetter teaches the computer system (system [0020]) further configured to execute a GUID hash function (compute a hash value [0074]; the function that generates the hash value [0081]) on the unique identifier, (The GUID may be an identifier that is essentially guaranteed to be globally unique. The GUID ensures that a hash value generated upon a conversion for each advertiser is also unique. [0077]) resulting in a unique hash code; (hash value [0077]) and the database (conversion events database [0065]) in communication with the computer system (system [0020]) configured to store (store [0079]) said unique hash code (hash value [0077])along with a name of said entity (image or text of entity ]0104]) in the database(conversion events database [0065]) for fast retrieval of information about said entity. (image or text of entity ]0104])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela to incorporate the teachings of Roetter the computer system further configured to execute a GUID hash function on the unique identifier, resulting in a unique hash code; and the database in communication with the computer system configured to store said unique hash code along with a name of said entity in the database for fast retrieval of information about said entity. By doing so generating hash values and using unique IDs to determine if a conversion is valid. Roetter [0109]
Lazovic teaches the database being a cloud-based storage system: (in a cloud computing environment. [0035]) receiving, at the computer system, a query, (The database computer system 210 may further include a database engine 214A. The database engine 214A may comprise any appropriate combination of software and/or hardware that is capable of both receiving queries associated with the databases 212, as well as performing any applicable operations with respect to such queries and databases (e.g., building an appropriate response to a particular query). [0041]) the query having a form of "Who is" (a given parameterized query [0048]) and the unique hash code: (query text hashes, query template hashes, and query plan hashes. [0046]) and sending, via the at least one processor, (one or more processors [0023]) the query (the query [0048]) and the unique hash code (query text hashes, query template hashes, and query plan hashes. [0046]) to the database ( the database 212 [0046]) receiving, from the database ( the database 212 [0046])in response to the query (the query [0048])and the unique hash code, (query text hashes, query template hashes, and query plan hashes. [0046]) wherein the (1) sending of the query (the query [0048])and the unique hash code (query text hashes, query template hashes, and query plan hashes. [0046])and (2) the receiving (a) use multiple Application Program Interface (API) endpoints, (The user interface 112 may include output mechanisms 112A as well as input mechanisms 112B [0027]) such as “Application Program Interface (API) endpoints” and (b) occur via batch transmissions. (Fig. 3 Query 302A – query 302U which may have different parameters [0012], [0049], [0050]) such as “batch queries”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela in view Magruder and Roetter of to incorporate the teachings of Lazovic wherein the database being a cloud-based storage system: receiving, at the computer system, a query, the query having a form of "Who is" and the unique hash code: and sending, via the at least one processor, the query and the unique hash code to the database receiving, from the database in response to the query and the unique hash code, the name of the entity and information about the entity, the information comprising an entity status of the entity, wherein the (1) sending of the query and the unique hash code and (2) the receiving of (a) use multiple Application Program Interface (API) endpoints, and (b) occur via batch transmissions. By doing so the workload of the one or more databases may be associated with a plurality of queries. Lazovic [0004]
Regarding claim 24 Abela in view of Magruder, Roetter and Lazovic teaches the system according to claim 23,
Abela as modified further teaches wherein the unique identifier (worldwide unique identifier [0059]) further includes another portion disposed between (Fig. 2A (202) uID Group Code [0059]) the domain portion (Fig. 2A (201) Country Code [0058]) and the sub-domain portion, (Fig. 2A (203) Variable length ID identifier unique in the county or origin [0058]) said another portion(Fig. 2A (202) uID Group Code [0059]) further refining the jurisdiction (an established country code standard. [0058]) of the entity. (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”)
Regarding claim 25 Abela in view of Magruder, Roetter and Lazovic teaches the system according to claim 23,
Abela as modified further teaches wherein said database(database [0066]) is configured to receive (all activities are logged in the activity log [0129]) a query (comprehensive query [0129] from a client computer (uID client system [0132]) to provide the information ("Who asked for my personal details between a <date range> or on a particular <time>?" [0129]) about the entity (persons [0113]) such as “individual [0061]”; “company [0062”)using said unique identifier (worldwide unique identifier [0059])
Regarding claim 26 Abela in view of Magruder, Roetter and Lazovic teaches the system of claim 23,
Abela as modified does not fully disclose wherein the sub-domain portion has an order of:(1) the designation of the entity type; (2) the agency code; and (3) the date of registration.
Magruder teaches wherein the sub-domain portion has an order of:(1) the designation of the entity type; (legal entity company or organization or individual Page 3) (2) the agency code; (Issuing Agency Page 3) and (3) the date of registration. (The ALEI is a simple, unique ID that identifies the organization or person that was formed or born on a certain date in a certain place. 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela in view of Roetter and Lazovic to incorporate the teachings of Magruder wherein the sub-domain portion has an order of:(1) the designation of the entity type; (2) the agency code; and (3) the date of registration. By doing so the ALEI as a simple, unique ID can identify the organization or person that was formed or born on a certain date in a certain place. Magruder Page 2.
Regarding claim 27 Abela in view of Magruder, Roetter and Lazovic teaches the method of claim 1,
Abela as modified does not fully disclose wherein the sub-domain portion has an order of:(1) the designation of the entity type; (2) the agency code; and (3) the date of registration.
Magruder teaches wherein the sub-domain portion has an order of:(1) the designation of the entity type; (legal entity company or organization or individual Page 3) (2) the agency code; (Issuing Agency Page 3) and (3) the date of registration. (The ALEI is a simple, unique ID that identifies the organization or person that was formed or born on a certain date in a certain place. 3)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abela in view of Roetter and Lazovic to incorporate the teachings of Magruder wherein the sub-domain portion has an order of:(1) the designation of the entity type; (2) the agency code; and (3) the date of registration. By doing so the ALEI as a simple, unique ID can identify the organization or person that was formed or born on a certain date in a certain place. Magruder Page 2.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be
calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will
the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this
final action.
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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469)295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272 - 4098. The fax phone
number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-
8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information
for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more
information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have
questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center
(EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166