DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This office action is in response to claims in application 18/122,263 filed on 3 /1 6 /202 3 . The instant application claims benefit to provisional application #63/ 29 9, 642 with a priority date of 1 /1 4 /202 2 . The Pre-Grant publication # 20230230187 is published on 7 / 20/ 20 23. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more . The claimed invention is a computer system (1-8) and to a process (claim 9-20). Thus fall within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES). Claims 1 , 14 and 20 are directed to a computer implemented method for determining a veracity and validating the medical case towards a progression to an accreditation, achieved by compiling a predetermined number of medical cases required by at least one of the medical institution and an accrediting institution, . The method involves a. receiving resident health professional registration data , generating a resident health professional user record with unique identifier , receiving attending health professional registration data for generating an attending health professional user record associated with an attending health professional , receiving third party registration data for generating a third party user record, storing the resident health professional user record, the attending health professional user record, and the third party user record in a connected database , receiving, medical record and task data, receiving real-time input , sending and receiving of SMS message s, generating a validated medical cas e, and use of graphical representation s. All of these involve steps drawn to concept categorized as an actions that are receiving, observing, identifying, generating, sending, evaluating and judging of textual and graphical inputs. A concept of storing and providing feedback information after input and processing falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” groupings that may also involve some calculative steps. They are of abstract ideas subject to the 2019 and 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. These are resulting oriented solution derived by organization of certain methods of human behavior and calculation without any significant improvement in functionality of machines. Hence generally categorized as a grouping of an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1 YES). The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “ determining a predetermined period of time after the medical case was performed ” , “processor s and interactions ’, “memor y storage at different location such as for blockchain network remote storage", " storing of validated medical case record network”, “predetermined threshold level of performance comparison”, “s ending a performance message to the computing device of the respective party, the performance message comprising a performance metric of the respective party ”, “ incentive message comprising minting a token associated with the validated task ”,” generating a graphical representation of the token for the validated task record based on at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes; ” are merely use of generic computer functions and computer parts. That is simply selecting portions of block chain network from text input and determining from storage only a corresponding filtered session for evaluation. Hence not indicative of integration of a practical application (Step 2A: Prong 2 No). The steps in the recited claims that are highlighted are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in art. Paragraphs 0005-0008 background description of residency program and illustration from Fig. 2-4 of the instant specification depict s a network software object movements for a hardware/ software in a standard computing environment with various devices party implement the process claimed here. They are disclosed in their specification in a manner that indicates that those features are well-known, routine, and conventional. They are not dealing with actual improvements to, e.g., networking , machine learning, etc. As an example in case of 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, the activities of storing and retrieving of information in a memory of consumer electronic for a field of use purposes are recognized to be computer functions well-understood, routine, and conventional, when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, there found to be no additional elements here in the claim recitation that improves the functioning of a computer itself to overcome the abstract idea rejection (Step 2B: No). Claims 2-13,15-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. S ending of token , generating a numerical score for the validated task record based on a plurality of predetermined scoring metrics , generating the progress interface comprises generating a progression level towards the goal based on comparing the validated task record to the unique task requirements of the third party record , tracking progression towards the goal by continuously updating the progression status indicator on the first computing device, g e ne rating an accreditation record , a graphical representation are function performing a pre- or post- solution activities. Comparing performance with a predetermined threshold level of performance and then sending message s and determining a predetermined period of time after the completed task was performed based on the task data. These claims merely apply an abstract idea to a programmable processor or computer and do not improve the performance of the process or computer itself or provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. Providing instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, for these reasons, the dependent are also not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 7299067 B2 to Riggs in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20060248128 A1 to Acharya et al. (Acharya). Claim 1. Riggs teaches a computer implemented method for determining a veracity of a completed task for validating the completed task towards a progression of a goal ( col.5 lines 28-43 certification for a veracity of completed task by sending results to devices in network ) , wherein the completed task is a medical procedure performed by a first party ( col.19 lines 7-13 medical principles examples included ) , wherein the goal is to compile a predetermined number of completed tasks required by a third party ( col.5 lines 38-32 training completion results sent to trainee and third certifying parties) , wherein the computer implemented method being executed by one or more processors, the computer implemented method comprising: a. receiving first party registration data for generating a first party user record, wherein the first party registration data comprises a first unique identifier associated with the first party and wherein such first party registration data is input on a first computing device associated with the first party (Fig.7 element 610, 615) ; b. receiving second party registration data for generating a second party user record, wherein the second party registration data comprises a second unique identifier associated with a second party and wherein such second party registration data is input on a second computing device associated with the second party (Fig.8 elements 830.840,860 second party certification) ; c. receiving third party registration data for generating a third party user record, wherein the third party registration data comprises unique task requirements associated with the third party and wherein such third party registration data is input on a third computing device associated with the third party ( Fig.13 off-site third part y registration and branding possible; Col.18 lines 34-39; certification supervisory sent to medical board etc. c ol.22 lines 20-40 a third computing device registers unique task requirements such as for CLE Continuing Legal Education ) ; d. storing the first party user record, the second party user record, and the third party user record in a connected database (col. 3 lines 5-8 store and display information in a useful way in network ; e. receiving, prior to determining the veracity of the completed task, at a direction of the first party, task data from the first computing device to generate a completed task record, the task data comprising a plurality of attributes of the completed task ( Fig.6 elements 620, 630; col.16 lines 30-49 login and task data or course list provided to generated records) ; Riggs does not explicitly concurrently teach the receiving of task data, receiving real-time input data automatically generating a time stamp associated with an entry of the task data, the real-time input data comprising a date, time, and geolocation of the entry of the task data to determine that the completed task was performed within the predetermined period of time. Acharya, however, teaches the teach the receiving of task data, receiving real-time input data automatically generating a time stamp associated with an entry of the task data, the real-time input data comprising a date, time, and geolocation of the entry of the task data to determine that the completed task was performed within the predetermined period of time (¶ 0010 query and tracking of a task in database based upon loca tion timestamp and a sync information related to the predetermined entity; Sync component can provide data capturing and/or tracking to an entity within the data storage system that participates in a sync relationship ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to receive f. concurrently task data, receiving real-time input data automatically generated from the first computing device to generate a time stamp associated with an entry of the task data, the real-time input data comprising a date, time, and geolocation of the entry of the task data on the first computing device , g. determining if the time stamp is within a predetermined period of time after the completed task was performed, wherein the predetermined period of time is based on the task data , as taught by A charya , into the into the remote electronic device system of Riggs, in order to register the timing and the location of server of the determined task accomplish ing the overall goal . Riggs in combination with Acharya also further teaches after determining that the completed task was performed within the predetermined period of time, causing an SMS message to be sent to the second computing device of the second party to determine the veracity of the completed task, the SMS message comprising ( i ) at least a portion of the first party user record, (ii) the completed task record, and (iii) a solicitation to approve the completed task record; i . receiving a reply SMS message from the second computing device, the reply SMS message comprising veracity data that defines an approval or a disapproval of the completed task record; j. after determining that the approval was received, then generating a validated task record based on the reply SMS message ( Riggs: col.14 lines 13-20, col.15:lines 20-23 SMS message facilitated delivery of communication based on task status and requirement ) ; Riggs does not explicitly concurrently teach k. storing the validated task record on a blockchain network; and l. minting a token associated with the validated task. A charya , however, teaches the concurrently teach es k. storing the validated task record on a blockchain network; and l. minting a token associated with the validated task (¶ , 0095, 0099 LAN technologies include Token Ring s capability as generating new digital assets like minting col.1 of tokens in context of blockchain and recording in digital ledger know n in art; A blockchain is a decentralized, immutable, and transparent digital ledger that records transactions across a peer-to-peer network for an entity sub-level based at least in part upon the participation of a synch ronization relationship; Para 0084 a chain of building "blocks" containing data, with storage system utilizing a set of basic building block s for generating and managing rich, persisted objects and links between objects ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate k. storing the validated task record on a blockchain network; and l. minting a token associated with the validated task , as taught by A charya , into the remote electronic device system of R iggs , so that the benefit from the record of validated task could profitably be used. Claim 2 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1 comprising sending the token to the first computing device of the first party ( col.1 lines 26-30 sending certification or token of accomplishment to computing devices send at remote training sites ) . Claim 3 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 2, comprising, after generating the validated task record, then generating a numerical score for the validated task record based on a plurality of predetermined scoring metrics (col.18 lines 37-39 scoring of validated task) . Claim 4 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 3, comprising, after generating a numerical score for the validated task record, then calculating a user score based on the numerical score of the validated task record (col.18 lines 15 -3 0 score validation could be based on numerical comparison ) . Claim 5 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 4 comprising generating a progress interface for displaying a progression status indicator on the first computing device, wherein generating the progress interface comprises generating a progression level towards the goal based on comparing the validated task record to the unique task requirements of the third party record (col. 22 lines 59-66 web page interface for progress by participation and keeping track that could also be used to validate task records). Claim 6 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 5 comprising creating a plurality of tokens for a plurality of validated task records (col. 24 lines 64-67 plurality of book markings or token to track certain instructions to follow a task records such as for easy return to course page) . Claim 7 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 6 comprising tracking progression towards the goal by continuously updating the progression status indicator on the first computing device, wherein updating the progression status indicator comprises generating an updated progression level after processing each validated task record of the plurality of validated task records and generating an updated progress interface to be displayed on the first computing device (co.18 lines 42-64 video control could be used to tracking toward a goal in a continuous updating indicator of progress and record as in figure 9). Claim 8 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 7 comprising updating the user score based on calculating an updated user score, the updated user score being based on processing each validated task record of the plurality of validated task records (col,18 lines 34-36 automatic validated task scoring are recorded) . Claim 9 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 8 comprising generating an accreditation record for the first party when the goal is achieved, wherein achieving the goal comprises at least one of ( i ) the user score reaches a predetermined maximum user score; (ii) all unique task requirements of the third user record have been satisfied by the plurality of validated task records of the first party; and (iii) the progression level reaches a predetermined maximum progression level (col.27 liens 28-40 an accreditation record for the first party goal is achieved all post-test certification; col.24-9-15 assisting user for assistance Claim 10 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 9 comprising generating a graphical representation of the token for the validated task record based on at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes (col.15 lines 33-35 improved graphical interfaces to represent validated tokens) . Claim 11 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 10 comprising generating a second graphical representation of a wallet to be sent to the first computing device for displaying the graphical representation of the token (col.19 lines 3-4 graphic al examples and representation used for better explanations) . Claim 12 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 11 comprising categorizing a plurality of tokens based on a plurality of validated attributes of a plurality of validated tasks, the categorizing comprising a plurality of predetermined groups that each correspond to a specific attribute of the plurality of attributes (col. 4 lines 48-50 predetermined collective groups with plurality of validated attributes and interactive ta sk) . Claim 13 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 12 comprising after determining that the disapproval was received, then receiving revised task data from the second computing device, the revised task data comprising at least one change to at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes; and then generating the validated task record based on the revised task data (Fig.8 element 850 , col.18 lines 14-22 notification in case of non-accomplishment of task for possible revision ) . Claim 14. Riggs in combination with Acharya teaches a c omputer implemented method for determining a veracity of a completed task for validating the completed task towards a progression of a goal, wherein the completed task is a medical procedure performed by a first party, wherein the goal is to compile a predetermined number of completed tasks required by a third party, wherein the computer implemented method being executed by one or more processors, the computer implemented method comprising: a. receiving first party registration data for generating a first party user record, wherein the first party registration data comprises a first unique identifier associated with the first party and wherein such first party registration data is input on a first computing device associated with the first party; b. receiving second party registration data for generating a second party user record, wherein the second party registration data comprises a second unique identifier associated with a second party and wherein such second party registration data is input on a second computing device associated with the second party; c. receiving third party registration data for generating a third party user record, wherein the third party registration data comprises unique task requirements associated with the third party and wherein such third party registration data is input on a third computing device associated with the third party; d. storing the first party user record, the second party user record, and the third party user record in a connected database; e. receiving, prior to determining the veracity of the completed task, at a direction of the first party, task data from the first computing device to generate a completed task record, the task data comprising a plurality of attributes of the completed task; f. concurrently to receiving task data, receiving real-time input data automatically generated from the first computing device to generate a time stamp associated with the entry of the task data, the real-time input data comprising a date, time, and geolocation of the entry of the task data on the first computing device; g. causing a message to be sent to the second computing device of the second party to determine the veracity of the completed task, the message comprising ( i ) at least a portion of the first party user record, (ii) the completed task record, and (iii) a solicitation to approve the completed task record; h. receiving a reply message from the second computing device, the reply message comprising veracity data that defines an approval or a disapproval of the completed task record; i . after determining that the approval was received, then generating a validated task record based on the reply SMS message; j. storing the validated task record on a blockchain network; and k. minting a token associated with the validated task (col. 22 lines 59-66 web page interface for progress by participation and keeping track that could also be used to validate task records; col.14 lines 13-20, col.15:lines 20-23 SMS message facilitated delivery of communication based on task status and requirement completion of medical procedures e.g. from medical board approval as in col.19 lines 7-10 along with generate of a time stamp associated with the entry of the task data time stamp of specific cases) Claim 15 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 14 comprising generating a graphical representation of the token for the validated task record based on at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes (col.19 lines 3-4 graphical examples and representation used for better explanations). Claim 16 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 14 comprising generating a plurality of tokens based on a plurality of validated tasks and then categorizing the plurality of tokens based on a plurality of validated attributes of the plurality of validated tasks into a plurality of predetermined groups, wherein each group correspond to a specific attribute of the plurality of validated attributes (col. 4 lines 48-50 predetermined collective groups with plurality of validated attributes and interactive task). . Claim 17 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 15 comprising generating a third user graphical interface comprising aggregated data about at least one of the first party and the second party, the aggregated data comprising information about a respective party's performance over time (col.19 lines 5-11 illustrative graphics can determine aggregated data about a respective party's performance over time) . Claim 18 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 16 comprising, if the respective party's performance is below a predetermined threshold level of performance then at least one of (1) sending a performance message to the computing device of the respective party, the performance message comprising a performance metric of the respective party, and (2) sending an incentive message to the computing device of the respective party, the incentive message comprising a second set of goals to complete to receive an incentive (col.1 lines 26-30 sending certification or incentive encouraging messages to computing devices send at remote training sites as in figure 12) . Claim 19 . Riggs teaches the computer implemented method of claim 16 comprising determining if the time stamp is within a predetermined period of time after the completed task was performed, wherein the predetermined period of time is based on the task data (col.14 lines 26-35 bandwidth with time division multiple access to each user could stamp predetermined period of time). Claim 20. Riggs in combination with Acharya teaches a computer implemented method for determining a veracity of a medical case for validating the medical case towards a progression to an accreditation of at least one of a resident health professional and a medical institution, wherein the medical case is a medical procedure performed by the resident health professional, wherein the accreditation is achieved by compiling a predetermined number of medical cases required by at least one of the medical institution and an accrediting institution, wherein the computer implemented method being executed by one or more processors, the computer implemented method comprising: a. receiving resident health professional registration data for generating a resident health professional user record, wherein the resident health professional registration data comprises a first unique identifier associated with the resident health professional and wherein such resident health professional registration data is input on a first computing device associated with the resident health professional; b. receiving attending health professional registration data for generating an attending health professional user record, wherein the attending health professional registration data comprises a second unique identifier associated with an attending health professional and wherein such attending health professional registration data is input on a second computing device associated with the attending health professional; c. receiving third party registration data for generating a third party user record, wherein the third party registration data comprises unique task requirements associated with the third party and wherein such third party registration data is input on a third computing device associated with the third party, and wherein the third party is at least one of a medical institution and an accrediting institution; d. storing the resident health professional user record, the attending health professional user record, and the third party user record in a connected database; e. receiving, prior to determining the veracity of the medical case, at a direction of the resident health professional, medical record data from the first computing device to generate a medical case record, the medical record data comprising a plurality of attributes of the medical case; f. concurrently to receiving task data, receiving real-time input data automatically generated from the first computing device to generate a time stamp associated with the entry of the medical record data, the real-time input data comprising a date, time, and geolocation of the entry of the task data on the first computing device; g. determining if the time stamp is within a predetermined period of time after the medical case was performed, wherein the predetermined period of time is based on the medical record data; h. after determining that the medical case was performed within the predetermined period of time, causing an SMS message to be sent to the second computing device of the attending health professional to determine the veracity of the medical case, the SMS message comprising ( i ) at least a portion of the resident health professional user record, (ii) the medical case record, and (iii) a solicitation to approve the medical case record; i . receiving a reply SMS message from the second computing device, the reply SMS message comprising veracity data that defines an approval or a disapproval of the medical case record; j. after determining that the approval was received, then generating a validated medical case record based on the reply SMS message; k. storing the validated medical case record on a blockchain network; 1. minting a token associated with the validated task; m. generating a graphical representation of the token for the validated task record based on at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes; n. generating a third user graphical interface for displaying on the third computing device, the third user graphical interface comprising aggregated data about the performance of the at least one of the resident health professional and the attending health professional over time, wherein the performance is measurable based on at least one of the number of medical cases and validated medical cases; and o. if the respective party's performance is below a predetermined threshold level of performance, then at least one of (1) sending a performance message to the computing device of the respective party, the performance message comprising a performance metric of the respective party, and (2) sending an incentive message to the computing device of the respective party, the incentive message comprising a second set of goals to complete to receive an incentive ( Col.18 lines 36-39 claim 1 rejection statements could also be extended to a completed task case towards a progression for an accreditation of a t least of a resident he al th professional and a medical institution since prior art in col.19 lines 7-10 is disclosing about medical principles of resident health govern ed by medical board) , . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9779449 B2 Meyer; David M. et al. Veracity determination through comparison of a geospatial location of a vehicle with a provided data US 20160314696 A1 to Hammond; Robin et al. A Method and System for Monitoring Behavior US 20100179821 A1 GEDEON H M et al. Method for tracking adverse event reports in e.g. medical information computing environment such as clinical computing environment, involves querying status of adverse event reports communicated to end-user receiving parties . Oden; William R. et al. US 10748158 B2 Method and system for monitoring an issue US 12450668 B2 Kushniruk ; Marshal et al. Enabling reviewer to assess private data set of other party using custom parameter values US 20130185219 A1 Jaafar; Mohd. Saleh et al. SYSTEM TO ADMINISTER AN OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION Enabling reviewer to assess private data set of other party using custom parameter values US 7299067 B2 Riggs; Lee Methods and systems for managing the provision of training provided remotely through electronic data networks to users of remote electronic devices certifications to trainees and third parties such as training/regulatory authorities and employers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3137 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am to 5pm CST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Xuan Thai can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7147 . 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. /S.Z/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715 November 12, 2025 /XUAN M THAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715