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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
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 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 14 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1 and 14 (claim 1 being representative) is:
receive medical data of a plurality of users;
store the received medical data of the plurality of users;
detect a request from a requestor to purchase a data feed for one or more indicated types of medical data of a user of the plurality of users;
identify the medical data for the user that matches the one or more indicated types of medical data;
store the identified medical data corresponding to the user;
prove that the identified medical data corresponding to the user has not been modified.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are directed to utilizing medical data to enable users to offer it for sale by associating it with pricing information. This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers commercial activity. This is further supported by paragraphs 0002 - 0004 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to managing medical data, including data ownership coordination, which constitutes a process that, under its BRI, could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. This is further supported by paragraphs 0002 – 0004 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to managing medical data, including data ownership coordination between entities, which constitutes a process that, under its BRI, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by paragraphs 0002 – 0004 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP §2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: A computer system configured to implement a medical data non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger; a medical data database configured to store medical data; one or more processors; one or more memories; via a medical data engine; a first storage location; a second storage location; mint a medical data NFT that indicates the second storage location, wherein the medical data NFT includes a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user, and wherein minting the medical data NFT adds the medical data NFT to a digital wallet associated with the requestor; with a validator module, validate an update to the distributed ledger, wherein the update is caused by the minted medical data NFT; with a purchaser device, comparing the hash included in the NFT to a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user at the second storage location.
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements: medical data non-fungible token (NFT); distributed ledger; via one or more processors and a medical data engine; in a first storage location, wherein the first storage location is in a medical data database; a second storage location; minting, via the one or more processors, a medical data NFT that indicates the second storage location, wherein the medical data NFT includes a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user, and wherein minting the medical data NFT adds the medical data NFT to a digital wallet associated with the requestor; with a validator module, validate an update to the distributed ledger, wherein the update is caused by the minted medical data NFT; with a purchaser device, comparing the hash included in the NFT to a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user at the second storage location.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraphs 0114 – 0120 of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claims 2 and 15, further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: wherein the second storage location is in the medical data database, a third party database separate from the medical data database, or a file sharing network. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claims 3 and 16, further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: one or more memories; one or more processors; medical data database; second storage location. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claims 4 and 17, further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: one or more memories; one or more processors; smart devices corresponding to the plurality of users; electronic medical records (EMR) system. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 18-19, applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 20, further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: medical data database. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 8 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: one or more memories; one or more processors. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 9 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: distributed ledger; smart contract. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 10 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: medical data NFT; one or more memories; one or more processors; smart contract; second storage location. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 11 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: medical data NFT. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 12 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: one or more memories; one or more processors; smart contract; medical data NFT. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 13 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: digital wallet; medical data NFT. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 1-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cordonnier (US 11443838) in view of Duarte (US 20230069258) in further view of Gropper (US 20220335112).
Claims 1 and 14
Regarding claims 1 and 14 Cordonnier discloses:
(claim 1) A computer system configured to implement a medical data non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger, the computer system comprising {“The present technology is directed to systems and methods for storing, managing, and accessing healthcare data in a distributed ledger (e.g., public ledger) and/or blockchain managed digital filing cabinets.” (col. 2, lines 54-57) The authentication levels can include tokens (e.g., non-fungible tokens). (col 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 2)}
(claim 1) a medical data database configured to store medical data {The system includes a database configured to store healthcare data. (col. 13, lines 46-49)}
(claim 1) one or more processors {The system can include one or more processors. (col. 10, lines 13-16)}
(claim 1) one or more memories {The system can include multiple memories. (col. 23, lines 7-11)}
(claim 1) the one or more memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to {The system includes “one or more processors, and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to perform the methods described herein” (col. 10, lines 14-16)}
(claim 14) A computer-implemented method for implementing a medical data non-fungible token (NFT) on a distributed ledger, comprising {“The present technology is directed to systems and methods for storing, managing, and accessing healthcare data in a distributed ledger (e.g., public ledger) and/or blockchain managed digital filing cabinets.” (col. 2, lines 54-57) The authentication levels can include tokens (e.g., non-fungible tokens). (col 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 2)}
(claims 1 and 14) identify, in the medical data database via the medical data engine, the medical data for the user that matches the one or more indicated types of medical data; {The system identifies medical data (e.g., medical imaging, billing information, post-operation information, implant information, biometric information, surgery details, etc.) based on type for conversion to NFT (col. 26, lines 13-33).}
(claims 1 and 14) store, via the medical data engine, the identified medical data corresponding to the user at a second storage location; and {The first storage corresponds to the primary filing cabinet (col. 6, lines 22-27) or medical data database ((col. 13, lines 46-49). The identified medical data refers to the result of the system filtering or selecting data types (col. 26, lines 13-33). This selected data can be stored again as part of an NFT in a digital wallet (i.e., a distinct second location) (col. 26, lines, 48-52).}
Cordonnier does not disclose:
(claims 1 and 14) receive, via a medical data engine, medical data of a plurality of users;
(claims 1 and 14) store, via the medical data engine, the received medical data of the plurality of users in a first storage location, wherein the first storage location is in the medical data database;
(claims 1 and 14) detect a request from a requestor to purchase a data feed for one or more indicated types of medical data of a user of the plurality of users;
(claims 1 and 14) mint a medical data NFT that indicates the second storage location, wherein the medical data NFT includes a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user, and wherein minting the medical data NFT adds the medical data NFT to a digital wallet associated with the requestor;
(claims 1 and 14) with a validator module, validate an update to the distributed ledger, wherein the update is caused by the minted medical data NFT;
(claims 1 and 14) prove, with a purchaser device, that the identified medical data corresponding to the user at the second storage location has not been modified by comparing the hash included in the NFT to a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user at the second storage location.
However, Duarte, in a similar field of endeavor directed to the facilitation of data exchange through a digital network marketplace, teaches:
(claims 1 and 14) detect a request from a requestor to purchase a data feed for one or more indicated types of medical data of a user of the plurality of users; {A buyer searches public data objects and places a purchase order referencing a selling order (paragraphs 0054 and 0059). The private data object can be medical records. (paragraph 0007)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the medical data management features of Cordonnier, to include the data access mechanisms in a digital ledger network features of Duarte to improve confidence and flow of information exchange. (See paragraph 0004 of Duarte).
The combination of Cordonnier and Duarte does not teach:
(claims 1 and 14) receive, via a medical data engine, medical data of a plurality of users;
(claims 1 and 14) store, via the medical data engine, the received medical data of the plurality of users in a first storage location, wherein the first storage location is in the medical data database;
(claims 1 and 14) mint a medical data NFT that indicates the second storage location, wherein the medical data NFT includes a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user, and wherein minting the medical data NFT adds the medical data NFT to a digital wallet associated with the requestor;
(claims 1 and 14) with a validator module, validate an update to the distributed ledger, wherein the update is caused by the minted medical data NFT;
(claims 1 and 14) prove, with a purchaser device, that the identified medical data corresponding to the user at the second storage location has not been modified by comparing the hash included in the NFT to a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user at the second storage location.
However, Gropper, in a similar field of endeavor directed to conveying verified information about an individual, teaches:
(claims 1 and 14) receive, via a medical data engine, medical data of a plurality of users; {The issuer’s application collects user data to generate the health credential (paragraph 0031). The system also contemplates issuance of credentials during healthcare events such as vaccination (paragraph 0051).}
(claims 1 and 14) store, via the medical data engine, the received medical data of the plurality of users in a first storage location, wherein the first storage location is in the medical data database; {The system generates a signed credential containing the user data hash, where “a clustering algorithm… calculates the hash of the quantized photo” and the value is included in the “signed digital credential” (paragraphs 0029 – 0030). The credential is stored and accessed through a linked location, as a processor “interprets a bar code 621 as a link to a signed credential 630” (paragraph 0049).}
(claims 1 and 14) mint a medical data NFT that indicates the second storage location, wherein the medical data NFT includes a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user, and wherein minting the medical data NFT adds the medical data NFT to a digital wallet associated with the requestor {A “camera […] interprets a bar code 621 as a link to a signed credential 630” and the credential includes a “clustering algorithm […] [that] calculates the hash of the quantized photo [...] [and] compares the locally calculated hash with the one in the signed digital credential”. The credential is then provided to the patient for possession and later presentation, as “once the digital credential is handed or sent to the patient, the issuer does not need to store either the original or the quantized image” (i.e., adding the credential to a digital wallet or storage associated with the requestor) . “A complementary issuance operation […] can be used to issue a Digital Credential with Quantized Face 720 at the point of vaccination or other credential inception event” (i.e., mint) (paragraphs 0029 – 0030, 0032, 0049, 0051).}
(claims 1 and 14) with a validator module, validate an update to the distributed ledger, wherein the update is caused by the minted medical data NFT: and {The system performs validation by generating a hash of the user data and verifying it against the stored credential value where “a clustering algorithm… calculates the hash of the quantized photo” and “a typical signature verification algorithm compares the locally calculated hash with the one in the signed digital credential and reports Success or Fail” (paragraphs 0029 – 0030). The validation is performed by a processing application, as “Validation app 610… [creates] a digest or hash 614 for validation by comparison in 615” (paragraph 0049).}
(claims 1 and 14) prove, with a purchaser device, that the identified medical data corresponding to the user at the second storage location has not been modified by comparing the hash included in the NFT to a hash of the identified medical data corresponding to the user at the second storage location {A digital processor verifies whether medical data has been altered by comparing a locally calculated hash of an image (i.e., medical or identity data) with the has stored in a signed digital credential (i.e., functioning analogously as the NFT). The system “calculates the hash of the quantized photo” and “compares the locally calculated hash with the one in the signed digital credential and reports Success or Fail” (paragraphs 0011, 0026 – 0030, 0035).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Cordonnier and Duarte to include the data verification and validation features of Gropper, to increase the security of digital credentials without compromising the privacy of the human subject of the credential. (See paragraph 0017 of Gropper).
Claims 2 and 15
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Cordonnier further discloses:
wherein the second storage location is in the medical data database, a third party database separate from the medical data database, or a file sharing network {“[A] user can select the stored location of data associated with the NFT and can use decentralized storage (e.g., interplanetary file systems), peer-to-peer hypermedia protocols, NFT platforms or marketplaces, or other systems to store NFTs and NFT-related data.” (col. 5, lines 7-12)}
Claims 3 and 16
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Cordonnier further discloses:
detect that additional medical data of the one or more indicated types of medical data was added to the medical data database {“[I]ntegration module 452 identifies new healthcare data (e.g., medical charts, medical images, health goals, medical diagnostics, etc.) added to the digital filing cabinet (i.e., medical data database) and updates the organized healthcare data with the new healthcare data.” (col. 28, lines 40-44)}
store the additional medical data at the second storage location {“Control module 458 can identify new healthcare data and update the digital filing cabinet of the healthcare provider to include the new healthcare data.” (i.e., stores the updated medical data into a database) (col. 29, lines 55-57). This data can be stored again as part of an NFT in a digital wallet (i.e., a distinct second location) (col. 26, lines, 48-52).}
Claims 4 and 17
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Cordonnier further discloses:
wherein to receive the medical data, the one or more memories having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive the medical data from: (i) smart devices corresponding to the plurality of users, and/or (ii) an electronic medical records (EMR) system {“[T]he digital filing cabinet can automatically receive data from user devices, such as wearable devices, smartphones, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), or other devices capable of collecting biometrics of the user.” (col. 3, lines 24-27)}
Claims 5 and 18
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Cordonnier further discloses:
wherein the medical data corresponding to the user includes medical data labeled as heart rate data, blood oxygen level data, disease history data, and/or treatment history data {“The patient healthcare data 108 can include data representative of the patient's condition, anatomy, pathology, medical history, preferences, and/or any other information or parameters relevant to the patient.” (col. 9, lines 25-29)}
Claims 6 and 19
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Cordonnier further discloses:
wherein the medical data corresponding to the user includes user characteristic data including data of the user's: height, weight, gender, and/or socio-economic status {Patient healthcare data can further include “patient information (e.g., demographics, sex, age, height, weight, type of pathology, occupation, activity level, tissue information, health rating, comorbidities, health related quality of life (HRQL))” (col. 9, lines 35-38)}
Claims 7 and 20
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Duarte further teaches:
wherein user records in the medical data database are configured to associate medical data types with a price at which the user is willing to sell a data feed of the corresponding medical data type {A description of the data object (i.e., medical data) being sold or given access is included (paragraph 0044). “The terms of access may include one or more of exclusivity, a period of time granted for the access, restrictions on use, […] privacy requirements, and more.” (i.e., what information the user is willing to sell) (paragraph 0043). The selling order includes the information “about a data object to which access is being offered and also includes terms and conditions about the offer may include a price.” (paragraph 0050)}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Duarte are the same as set forth previously.
Claim 8
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Duarte further teaches:
receive, from the requestor, a price query for one or more medical data types associated with the user {Each token “includes the public data object describing the data object being offered for access” (paragraph 0044) and the “terms and conditions about the offer may include a price” (paragraph 0050)}
provide, to the requestor, a quote to the requestor based upon the prices at which the user is willing to sell the data feeds for the one or more medical data types included in the price query {A buyer searches for public data objects of interest with pricing and access conditions. (e.g., price query) If the object is found, the buyer may place a purchase order. (paragraphs 0057 – 0059)}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Duarte are the same as set forth previously.
Claim 9
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Duarte further teaches:
the distributed ledger includes a data owner smart contract configured to indicate a price at which a data owner is willing to sell medical data {The selling order, implemented as a smart contract on the blockchain, is configured to include pricing terms set by the data owner. (paragraphs 0043 and 0056; see also paragraph 0040)}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Duarte are the same as set forth previously.
Claim 10
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Duarte further teaches:
configure a smart contract associated with the medical data NFT to include a set of rights associated with the medical data stored at the second storage location {The system configures smart contracts (i.e., selling orders) to include a set of rights associated with access to the underlying data object (i.e., medical data), such as usage restrictions and licensing conditions (paragraph 0050).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Duarte are the same as set forth previously.
Claim 11
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Duarte further teaches:
wherein the set of rights include a temporal restriction on access to the medical data, a usage restriction on the medical data, or a transferability restriction on the medical data NFT {The system allows a temporal restriction (i.e., “period of time granted for the access”), a usage restriction (i.e., “restriction on use”), and a transferability restriction (i.e., restriction on re-distribution”) to be defined within the smart contract associated with the NFT (paragraph 0050).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Duarte are the same as set forth previously.
Claim 12
The combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches limitations set forth above. Duarte further teaches:
configure a smart contract associated with the medical data NFT to self-execute to enforce payment terms for access to the indicated types of medical data {The system uses smart contracts to enforce automated execution of payment conditions before access is granted to private data. (paragraphs oo40, 0047, 0056, and 0062).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Duarte are the same as set forth previously.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper in further view of Marks (US 20230045080).
Claim 13
While the combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein enforcing the payment terms for access to the indicated types of medical data includes transferring payment from a digital wallet associated with an owner of the medical data NFT to a digital wallet associated with the user.
However, Marks, in a similar field of endeavor directed to the utilization of blockchain technology to support the sale, purchase, and creation of assets, teaches:
wherein enforcing the payment terms for access to the indicated types of medical data includes transferring payment from a digital wallet associated with an owner of the medical data NFT to a digital wallet associated with the user {Smart contracts embedded in NFTs are used to automatically transfer payment from a purchaser’s digital wallet to a seller’s digital wallet in enforcement of payment terms (paragraphs 0050 and 0055).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Cordonnier, Duarte, and Gropper to include the digital tokens ownership management features of Marks to improve the provision of medical and wellness care for individuals and/or at large, support efficient and economical research and product development. (See paragraph 0064 of Marks).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
The rejection does not rely solely on the mental process grouping. Even if some steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the claim is still directed to an abstract idea under the certain methods of organizing human activity category. Under the BRI, the claim recites commercial arrangement for obtaining, selling, and verifying access to medical data between a data owner and a purchaser. The claim recites steps describing a data access transaction involving commercial interactions, even though implemented using computer components.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical technological application. These elements are used in their ordinary capacities to implement the transaction. The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer or database, for example. Instead, these components are used as tools to perform the underlying commercial process of selling and verifying medical data access.
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The specification describes the computing environment in generic terms. The claim similarly recites these components at a high level without specifying a technological improvement to how they operate. As a result, the claim merely implements the abstract idea using generic computer and distributed ledger components.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments above have been considered but are moot, given that they are directed to the present amendments, which modified the scope of the claim and necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Instead of restating here, examiner directs applicant’s attention to the claim analysis above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (additional pertinent references can be found on attached form PTO-892):
US 20230298001, which teaches: Methods and systems for enabling off-chain transactions via a non-fungible token (NFT) marketplace are provided. A plurality of digital wallets associated with a service provider are provided with access to the NFT marketplace. The NFT marketplace corresponds to a decentralized blockchain associated with an entity that is different from the service provider. A request to perform a transaction involving a purchase, via the NFT marketplace, of an NFT associated with a specified source address is received from a first user of the service provider associated with a first identifier and a first digital wallet. Responsive to determining that the specified source address corresponds to a second user of the service provider associated with a second identifier and a second digital wallet, an identifier associated with the NFT is updated from the second identifier associated with the second user to the first identifier associated with the first user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629