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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 18/257,757 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VERIFYING INSURANCE POLICIES" filed on March 26, 2026, with claims 1-2, 4, 7-15, 17, 20-21, 24-25, and 27-29 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 13, 14, and 21 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 27-29 are pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 26, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-15, 17, 20-21, 24-25, and 27-29 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Final Office Action mailed November 28, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 6 2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Declaration
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed March 26, 2026, is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7-15, 17, 20-21, 24-25, and 27-29 based upon 35 USC 101 as set forth in the last Office action because:
The Declaration provided is directed to a question of law. Exergen Corp., 725 Fed. App’x. 959, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018) held that "[l]ike indefiniteness, enablement, or obviousness, whether a claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter is a question of law based on underlying facts." Although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive. In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962) (expert opinion that an application meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 is not entitled to any weight; however, facts supporting a basis for deciding that the specification complies with 35 U.S.C. 112 are entitled to some weight); In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967) (Although an affiant’s or declarant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in the case, "some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of one skilled in the art on what was not obvious to him." 385 F.2d at 456, 155 USPQ at 524 (emphasis in original)).
Here, the Declaration by the co-inventor Chandan Mishra states:
“the claims are drawn to providing an improved method of verifying that an insurance policy submitted as proof of insurance is active and valid in order to reduce fraud and streamline insurance policy-based approval processes.”
"[c]onventionally, providing evidence of insurance has been
…prone to issues like fraud and forgery by the policyholder (e.g .. higher limits, longer terms, etc.), a party who is not a policyholder, or other parties that make false representations about an insurance policy allegedly associated with an insurance company."
“solution makes use of blockchain technology, including an improved and novel use of a blockchain ledger. These improvements are reflected in many features, including that the claims leverage the ledger to provide an immutable chain of validity that maintains the status of a given insurance policy.”
“An additional advantage over existing systems, the blockchain implementation also contains historical information about the status of an insurance policy. By its nature, a blockchain appends the most recent updates to the hash-index / account index and does not erase the previous status of the chain.”
Examiner asserts that “verifying that an insurance policy submitted as proof of insurance is active and valid in order to reduce fraud and streamline insurance policy-based approval processes” expresses an abstract idea and is not a technological innovation. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the performance covers a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice and falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Furthermore, the issue at hand is not technological in nature but rather business process oriented. The concern that “providing evidence of insurance has been…prone to issues like fraud and forgery by the policyholder (e.g .. higher limits, longer terms, etc.), a party who is not a policyholder, or other parties that make false representations about an insurance policy allegedly associated with an insurance company” is not technical in nature. It relates to Organizing Human Activity which is an abstract idea.
Chandan Mishra comes closes to addressing 35 USC § 101 in the statement, “an improved … use of a blockchain ledger” in which the Examiner sought a description of how blockchain (an additional element or technical component) is fundamentally improved from generic blockchain technology. However, the examples such as, “These improvements are reflected in many features, including that the claims leverage the ledger to provide an immutable chain of validity that maintains the status of a given insurance policy” describes the immutability inherent to all blockchain implementations. Chandan Mishra continues, “By its nature, a blockchain appends the most recent updates to the hash-index / account index and does not erase the previous status of the chain.” This statement serves as acknowledgement that alleged improvements are inherent to all blockchain technologies.
Therefore, the Declaration is insufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
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 1-2, 4, 7-15, 17, 20-21, 24-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-15, 17, 20-21, 24-25, and 27-29 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“A … system comprising:
receiving a digital certificate containing insurance policy details associated with an insurance policy, wherein the digital certificate is associated with an insurance company;
and …comprising:
receiving, …the digital certificate;
and performing a two-step verification using … network to verify that the digital certificate is valid, wherein a first step of the two-step verification comprises:
comparing a hash value associated with the insurance policy to one or more hash values in a hash index, wherein each hash value of the one or more hash values is associated with a revoked insurance policy, wherein the hash index is included in a first revocation list that is included in the... network, and wherein the first revocation list excludes confidential customer information;
and generating a first positive verification result in response to a determination that the hash value is not included in the one or more hash values, wherein a second step of the two-step verification comprises:
identifying a …account address for the insurance policy from a blockchain account index, wherein the … account index is included in a second revocation list that is included in the … network;
determining whether a zero-value transaction in a transaction history associated with the …account address represents a cancellation policy action for the insurance policy;
and generating a second positive verification result in response to a determination that there is no zero-value transaction in the transaction history representing the cancellation policy action;
wherein validity of the digital certificate is verified only in response to generation of the first positive verification result and the second positive verification result.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/buyer and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “verify an insurance policy” and “generating a first positive verification result” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computing] [first/second computing device] [computing device comprises a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause the first computing device to perform a set of operations] [first/second computing device comprises a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause the second computing device to perform a set of operations]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[public blockchain] [blockchain]:
merely applying blockchain technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0039] “The processor 102 can include a general-purpose processor (e.g., a microprocessor)
[0043] “The computing device 100 can take various forms, such as a workstation terminal, a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a mobile phone, and/or a mobile computing device.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“computing system”, “first/second computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 4:
“computing system”, “first/second computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“Quick Response (QR)”: generally linking to QR code technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 7:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 8:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 9:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“blockchain”: merely applying blockchain technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 10:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 11:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 12:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 13:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0039] “The processor 102 can include a general-purpose processor (e.g., a microprocessor)
[0043] “The computing device 100 can take various forms, such as a workstation terminal, a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a mobile phone, and/or a mobile computing device.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, these dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 14 recites:
“A method … comprising: receiving, by ... for verifying the insurance policy, a digital certificate containing insurance policy details associated with an insurance policy, wherein the digital certificate is associated with an insurance company;
receiving, …the digital certificate;
and performing a two-step verification using …network to verify that the digital certificate is valid, wherein a first step of the two-step verification comprises:
comparing a hash value associated with the insurance policy to one or more hash values in a hash index, wherein each hash value of the one or more hash values is associated with a revoked insurance policy wherein the hash index is included in a first revocation list that is included in …network, and wherein the first revocation list excludes confidential customer information;
and generating a first positive verification result in response to a determination that the hash value is not included in the one or more hash values, wherein a second step of the two-step verification comprises:
identifying a …account address for the insurance policy from a blockchain account index, wherein the blockchain account index is included in a second revocation list that is included in the … network;
determining whether a zero-value transaction in a transaction history associated with the … account address represents a cancellation policy action for the insurance policy;
and generating a second positive verification result in response to a determination that there is no zero-value truncation in the transaction history representing the cancellation policy action;
wherein validity of the digital certificate is verified only in response to generation of the first positive verification result and the second positive verification result.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/buyer and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “verify an insurance policy” and “generating a first positive verification result” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[a first computing device of a computing system][by a second computing device of the computing system, from the first computing device]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[public blockchain] [blockchain]:
merely applying blockchain technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0039] “The processor 102 can include a general-purpose processor (e.g., a microprocessor)
[0043] “The computing device 100 can take various forms, such as a workstation terminal, a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a mobile phone, and/or a mobile computing device.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 15:
“computing system”, “first/second computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 17:
“computing system”, “first/second computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“Quick Response (QR)”: generally linking to QR code technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 20: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0039] “The processor 102 can include a general-purpose processor (e.g., a microprocessor)
[0043] “The computing device 100 can take various forms, such as a workstation terminal, a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a mobile phone, and/or a mobile computing device.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, these dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 21 recites:
“A … system … comprising:
receiving a digital certificate;
…comprising:
receiving, …information associated with the digital certificate;
and performing a two-step verification using …network to verify that the digital certificate is valid, wherein a first step of the two-step verification comprises:
comparing a hash value associated with an insurance policy to one or more hash values in a hash index, wherein each hash value of the one or more hash values is associated with a revoked insurance policy, wherein the hash index is included in a first revocation list that is included in the … network, and wherein the first revocation list excludes confidential customer information; ;
and generating a first positive verification result in response to a determination that the hash value is not included in the one or more hash values,
wherein a second step of the two-step verification comprises:
identifying a …account address for the insurance policy from a … account index, wherein the … account index is included in a second revocation list that is included in the … network;
determining whether a zero-value transaction in a transaction history associated with the …account address represents a cancellation policy action for the insurance policy;
and generating a second positive verification result in response to a determination that there is no zero-value transaction in the transaction history representing the cancellation policy action;
wherein validity of the digital certificate is verified only in response to generation of the first positive verification result and the second positive verification result.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer/buyer and/or insurance provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “verify an insurance policy” and “generating a first positive verification result” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computing] [a first computing device, wherein the first computing device comprises a first processor and a first non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon first program instructions that, upon execution by the first processor, cause the first computing device to perform a first set of operations][and a second computing device, wherein the second computing device comprises a second processor and a second non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon second program instructions that, upon execution by the second processor, cause the second computing device to perform a second set of operations][from the first computing device,] :
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[a public blockchain] [the public blockchain] [blockchain]:
merely applying blockchain technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0039] “The processor 102 can include a general-purpose processor (e.g., a microprocessor)
[0043] “The computing device 100 can take various forms, such as a workstation terminal, a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a mobile phone, and/or a mobile computing device.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 24:
“computing”, “computing device”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“Quick Response (QR)”: generally linking to QR code technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 25:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 27:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“blockchain”: merely applying blockchain technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 28:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 29:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0039] “The processor 102 can include a general-purpose processor (e.g., a microprocessor)
[0043] “The computing device 100 can take various forms, such as a workstation terminal, a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a mobile phone, and/or a mobile computing device.”
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, these dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 2, 7-15, 20, 21, 25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fohr (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRACKING PROOF OF INSURANCE AND INSURANCE COMPLIANCE”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220405852 A1),in view of Ramadoss (“ASSET-BACKED TOKENS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20200042989 A1), in view of Hu (“BLOCKCHAIN CERTIFICATE REVOCATION AND VERIFICATION METHODS, ISSUING NODE, AND VERIFICATION NODE”, WIPO Publication Number: WO 2021103997 A1), in view of Ogilvie (“ANONYMITY-PRESERVING RECIPROCAL VETTING FROM A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE”, US Publication Number: US 20100049803 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Fohr teaches,
A computing system comprising: a first computing device, wherein the first computing device comprises a first processor and a first non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon first program instructions that, upon execution by the first processor, cause the first computing device to perform a first set of operations comprising: receiving a digital certificate containing insurance policy details associated with an insurance policy, wherein the digital certificate is associated with an insurance company; and a second computing device, wherein the second computing device comprises a second processor and a second non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon second program instructions that, upon execution by the second processor, cause the second computing device to perform a second set of operations comprising: receiving, from the first computing device, the digital certificate;
(Fohr [0372] To facilitate such functionality, the instant invention preferably provides mechanisms to host COIs using a computer-based network.
Fohr [0095] The COL 1060 policy 1070 is received and stored in the distributed ledger technology
Fohr [0374] may be tracked and verified (e.g. transactions on distributed ledgers, operations performed on external systems via. APIs, on network-connected devices, etc.).
Fohr [0474] The computer-readable medium can be stored on any suitable computer-readable media such as RAMs, ROMs, flash memory,...or any suitable device. The computer-executable component can be a processor
Fohr [0142] Brokers/carriers using the instant invention will have the opportunity to offer prospective customers insurance policy quotes. Advertising brokers/carriers do not receive customer details until the customer ops in)
is associated with a revoked insurance policy
(Fohr [0048] reporting of the instant invention is if a company cancels their insurance, the lender can contact them to discuss why the policy has been canceled. This is an important benefit of real-time COI process because canceling insurance is a leading indicator that a company is having financial difficulty.)
and wherein the hash index is included in a first revocation list that is included in the public blockchain network;
(Fohr [0048] reporting of the instant invention is if a company cancels their insurance, the lender can contact them to discuss why the policy has been canceled. This is an important benefit of real-time COI process because canceling insurance is a leading indicator that a company is having financial difficulty.
Fohr [0115] However, it does show that the insured has the listed coverages as of the date that the COI was produced.
Fohr [0118] Hashing or a hash function is any function that can be used to map data of arbitrary size to fixed-size values. ... The values are used to index a fixed-size table called a hash table
Fohr [0470] Any appropriate combination of data may be stored in each record (or block, where a ‘distributed ledger technology’ ledger structure is used). Where a ‘distributed ledger technology’ (or other applicable ledger) is used, the data may be stored in the state database or in any other appropriate form.
Fohr [0174] on the public distributed ledger technology.)
comparing a hash value associated with the insurance policy to one or more hash values in a hash index, wherein each hash value of the one or more hash values
(Fohr [0119] A COI can be hashed to a distributed ledger technology and timestamped.
Fohr [0118] COI hashing and timestamping. Hashing or a hash function is any function that can be used to map data of arbitrary size to fixed-size values. The values returned by a hash function are called hash values, hash codes, digests, or simply hashes. The values are used to index a fixed-size table called a hash table.
Fohr [0465] where a computable contract interacts with a distributed ledger, objects in the graph may be used to execute and/or be referenced in ‘on-chain’ transactions or records (e.g. by their hash, identifiers, metadata, etc.)
Fohr [0372] A system of the embodiment of the invention is capable of monitoring any changes, modifications or updates made to their terms and conditions...provide approaches for secure version control of COIs
Fohr [0062] capable of data extraction and comparison for insurance requirements)
Fohr does not teach performing a two-step verification using public blockchain network to verify that the digital certificate is valid, wherein a first step of the two-step verification comprises: … wherein the first revocation list excludes confidential customer information; generating a first positive verification result in response to a determination that the hash value is not included in the one or more hash values, wherein a second step of the two-step verification comprises: identifying a blockchain account address for the insurance policy from a blockchain account index, wherein the blockchain account index is included in a second revocation list that is included in the public blockchain network; determining whether a zero-value transaction in a transaction history associated with the blockchain account address represents a cancellation policy action for the insurance policy; and generating a second positive verification result in response to a determination that there is no zero-value transaction in the transaction history representing the cancellation policy action; wherein validity of the digital certificate is verified only in response to generation of the first positive verification result and the second positive verification result.
Ramadoss teaches,
performing a two-step verification using public blockchain network to verify that the digital certificate is valid, wherein a first step of the two-step verification comprises: comparing a hash value …. to one or more hash values …., wherein each hash value of the one or more hash values
(Ramadoss [0048] The term “hash function” is a mathematical algorithm turns an arbitrarily large amount of data into a fixed-length size. The same hash will always result from the same data, but modifying the data by even one bit will completely change the hash.
Ramadoss [0147] encoded using one or more hashing and/or encoding algorithms, such as the Base58Check encoding algorithm
Ramadoss [0055] blockchain includes a Merkle tree of hash or digest values for transactions included in the block to arrive at a hash value for the block, which is itself combined with a hash value for a preceding block to generate a chain of blocks (blockchain)....transactions to the blockchain when a challenge is satisfied, typically such challenge involving a combination hash or digest for a prospective new block and a preceding block in the blockchain and some challenge criterion.
Ramadoss 0154] encoded using one or more hashing and/or encoding algorithms, such as the Base58Check algorithm.
Ramadoss [0234] blockchain platform analyzes the data
Ramadoss [0069] Check that the block number, difficulty, transaction root, uncle root and gas limit (various low-level Ethereum-specific concepts) are valid)
wherein a second step of the two-step verification comprises: identifying a blockchain account address for the insurance policy from a blockchain account index, wherein the blockchain account index is included in a second revocation list that is included in the public blockchain network;
(Ramadoss[0181] configured to store a zero value in the data element configured to store a transaction amount, and may be configured to store at least a network identifier or encoded value based thereon, an address identifier, and a transaction amount Ramadoss [0053] transactions recorded in the blockchain may include a destination address and a currency amount, such that the blockchain records how much currency is attributable to a specific address. In some instances, additional information may be captured, such as a source address, timestamp, etc.
Ramadoss [0048] The term “hash function” is a mathematical algorithm turns an arbitrarily large amount of data into a fixed-length size. The same hash will always result from the same data, but modifying the data by even one bit will completely change the hash.
Ramadoss [0065] current balance of any particular public ... address may be checked by any entity by executing a query of the blockchain database.
Ramadoss [0012] secure digital tokens, contracts, insurance
Ramados [0207] Note valuators should make sure the borrower has appropriate insurance for the collateral and that the note investor is listed as the Mortgagee on the Evidence of Insurance certificate issued by the insurance company. When listed as a Mortgagee on the insurance policy, the insurance company knows to issue a check to both the Mortgagee and the Borrower. In addition, if the policy is changed or canceled
Examiner notes blockchain account address for the insurance policy from a blockchain account index is checked to be canceled, changed, or active (has appropriate insurance) )
determining whether a zero-value transaction in a transaction history associated with the blockchain account address represents a cancellation policy action for the insurance policy;
(Ramadoss [0181] configured to store a zero value in the data element configured to store a transaction amount, and may be configured to store at least a network identifier or encoded value based thereon, an address identifier, and a transaction amount
Ramadoss[0207] Note valuators should make sure the borrower has appropriate insurance for the collateral and that the note investor is listed as the Mortgagee on the Evidence of Insurance certificate issued by the insurance company. When listed as a Mortgagee on the insurance policy, the insurance company knows to issue a check to both the Mortgagee and the Borrower. In addition, if the policy is changed or canceled
Ramadoss [0012] The system leverages blockchain)
generating a second positive verification result in response to a determination that there is no zero-value transaction truncation in the transaction history representing the cancellation policy action;
(Ramadoss [0104] balance associated with the public cryptocurrency address may be initialized to a non-zero value...service provider may initialize the balance to a non-zero value after the user transmits the public cryptocurrency address to the service provider. Once the balance has been initialized to a non-zero value,
Ramadoss [0207] if the policy is changed or canceled,
Examiner notes a non-zero balance transaction indicates a new, active (has appropriate insurance), or changed policy )
wherein validity of the digital certificate is verified only in response to generation of the first positive verification result and the second positive verification result.
(Ramados [0207] Note valuators should make sure the borrower has appropriate insurance for the collateral and that the note investor is listed as the Mortgagee on the Evidence of Insurance certificate issued by the insurance company. When listed as a Mortgagee on the insurance policy, the insurance company knows to issue a check to both the Mortgagee and the Borrower. In addition, if the policy is changed or canceled
Examiner notes blockchain account address for the insurance policy from a blockchain account index is checked to be canceled, changed, or active (has appropriate insurance) )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the two-step verification of Ramadoss “for authorizing blockchain transactions and linking blockchain transactions to privately verified identities.” (Ramadoss [0031]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. two-step verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the blockchain provides a distributed mechanism for reliably verifying a data entity such as an entity constituting or representing the potential to consume a resource” Ramadoss [0055])
Ramadoss does not teach generating a first positive verification result in response to a determination that the hash value is not included in the one or more hash values; wherein the first revocation list excludes confidential customer information;
Hu teaches,
generating a first positive verification result in response to a determination that the hash value is not included in the one or more hash values
(Hu [page 4] if the issuing node wants to announce the revocation status of the certificate, under normal circumstances, a large prime value will be assigned to the revoked certificate, and the cumulative multiplier of the large prime value of all revoked certificates will be published on the chain
Hu [page 8] can be used to verify the revocation status of the certificate to be verified; if the verification node determines If the first hash value and the second hash value are inconsistent, it is determined that the obtained MPT is an incorrect MPT.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the revocation verification of Hu “verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked.” (Hu [Abstract]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. revocation verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to improve the verification efficiency of the verification node when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked, and reduces the calculation amount of the verification node” Hu [Abstract])
Hu does not teach wherein the first revocation list excludes confidential customer information
Ogilvie teaches,
wherein the first revocation list excludes confidential customer information
(Ogilvie [0036] A list may be “displayed” by a system visually, audibly, and/or tactilely.
Ogilvie [Claim 10] what types of personally identifying information will be excluded from the respective reports
Ogilvie [0007] The vetting service sanitizes the background search results, e.g., by removing personally identifying information and location names...what types of information will be excluded. For instance, they may agree to include marital status and criminal history, if any, and agree to exclude employer names and medical information (STD test results, fertility test results, genetic screening, . . . ).)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the PII-cleansed lists of Ogilvie where “personally identifying information will be excluded from the respective reports.” (Ogilvie [Claim 10]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. PII-cleansed lists ) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “vetting service sanitizes the background search results, e.g., by removing personally identifying information” Ogilvie [0007])
Regarding Claim 2,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
wherein receiving, from the first computing device, the digital certificate comprises receiving, from the first computing device, by the second computing device, policy information associated with the digital certificate,
(Fohr [0095] The COL 1060 policy 1070 is received and stored in the distributed ledger technology
Fohr [0374] may be tracked and verified (e.g. transactions on distributed ledgers, operations performed on external systems via. APIs, on network-connected devices, etc.).
Fohr [0474] The computer-readable medium can be stored on any suitable computer-readable media such as RAMs, ROMs, flash memory,...or any suitable device. The computer-executable component can be a processor
Fohr [0142] Brokers/carriers using the instant invention will have the opportunity to offer prospective customers insurance policy quotes. Advertising brokers/carriers do not receive customer details until the customer ops in)
wherein policy information associated with the digital certificate comprises one or more of (i) policy start date, (ii) policy expiration date, or (iii) policy identification (ID) information.
(Fohr [0004] COIs include the following information: the existence of an insurance policy, summary of the key aspects and conditions of the policy, policyholder's name, policy effective date, type of coverage)
Regarding Claim 7,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
insurance policy
(ohr [0006] legal COIs cannot be revised or canceled
Fohr [0007] if the insured does not pay the premium and the policy is canceled)
Fohr does not teach wherein each hash value comprises a unique set of characters and is associated with a particular revoked … policy.
Hu teaches,
wherein each hash value comprises a unique set of characters and is associated with a particular revoked … policy.
(Hu [Claim 4] node stores the revocation information... further comprises:... calculates the hash value of the MPT after the serialization operation;
Hu [Claim 12] After storing the revocation information of the first credential in the first leaf node, perform a serialization operation on the MPT, and calculate the hash value of the MPT after the serialization operation;
Hu [page 7] in a standard 32-byte hexadecimal UUID (Universally Unique Identifier) format)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the revocation verification of Hu “verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked.” (Hu [Abstract]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. revocation verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to improve the verification efficiency of the verification node when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked, and reduces the calculation amount of the verification node” Hu [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 8,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
hash index
(Fohr [0118] Hashing or a hash function is any function that can be used to map data of arbitrary size to fixed-size values. ... The values are used to index a fixed-size table called a hash table)
Fohr does not teach wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying that no hash value in the hash … is associated with the insurance policy.
Hu teaches,
comprises verifying that no hash value in the hash … is associated with the insurance policy
(Hu [page 8] can be used to verify the revocation status of the certificate to be verified; if the verification node determines If the first hash value and the second hash value are inconsistent, it is determined that the obtained MPT is an incorrect MPT.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the revocation verification of Hu “verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked.” (Hu [Abstract]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. revocation verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to improve the verification efficiency of the verification node when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked, and reduces the calculation amount of the verification node” Hu [Abstract])
Ramadoss does not teach wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked
Hu teaches,
wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked.
(Hu [Abstract] blockchain certificate revocation method comprises...when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked
Hu [page 8] If there is no corresponding third branch path in any leaf node or branch node or extension node, it means that the certificate to be verified has not been revoked.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the revocation verification of Hu “verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked.” (Hu [Abstract]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. revocation verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to improve the verification efficiency of the verification node when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked, and reduces the calculation amount of the verification node” Hu [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 9,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
wherein each blockchain account address
(Fohr [0088] The instant invention allows carriers and brokers share policy and additional customer data on a real-time basis using Corda Distributed Ledger Technology (Blockchain). This allows the broker and/or carrier to automate insurance verification
Fohr [0473] The transaction block/record may be linked by a hash (as above) to the previous record/block in the object ledger structure, or may be linked by the record/block reference to which the transaction relates (e.g. instead of ‘Record 4’ being linked to ‘Record 3’, the former may, alternatively or additionally, be linked to ‘Record 2’ which stores the related data from the graph data structure).
Fohr [0027] The instant invention allows the information to be tracked. The information can be virtual... can track dynamic information (i.e. location of an insured item) which is then used to determine insurance coverage.)
Fohr does not teach in the blockchain account index is associated with a transaction history detailing zero-value transactions representing one or more policy actions associated with a particular insurance policy.
Ramadoss teaches,
in the blockchain account index is associated with a transaction history detailing zero-value transactions representing one or more policy actions associated with a particular insurance policy.
(Ramadoss[0181] configured to store a zero value in the data element configured to store a transaction amount, and may be configured to store at least a network identifier or encoded value based thereon, an address identifier, and a transaction amount
Ramadoss[0207] Note valuators should make sure the borrower has appropriate insurance for the collateral and that the note investor is listed as the Mortgagee on the Evidence of Insurance certificate issued by the insurance company. When listed as a Mortgagee on the insurance policy, the insurance company knows to issue a check to both the Mortgagee and the Borrower. In addition, if the policy is changed or canceled)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the two-step verification of Ramadoss “for authorizing blockchain transactions and linking blockchain transactions to privately verified identities.” (Ramadoss [0031]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. two-step verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the blockchain provides a distributed mechanism for reliably verifying a data entity such as an entity constituting or representing the potential to consume a resource” Ramadoss [0055])
Regarding Claim 10,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
wherein the one or more policy actions associated with the particular insurance policy comprises cancelling the particular insurance policy.
(Fohr [0007] if the insured does not pay the premium due, then the policy normally is canceled ... needs to be advised of the termination of the policy)
Regarding Claim 11,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 10 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
representing cancelling the particular insurance policy does not include zero-value transactions representing cancelling the insurance policy.
(Fohr [0007] if the insured does not pay the premium and the policy is canceled
Fohr [0006] legal COIs cannot be revised or canceled
Fohr [0465] cannot be reversed, and relies upon other parties agreeing to the reversal.)
Fohr does not teach wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying
Hu teaches,
wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying
(Hu [Abstract] blockchain certificate revocation method comprises...when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked
Hu [page 8] If there is no corresponding third branch path in any leaf node or branch node or extension node, it means that the certificate to be verified has not been revoked.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the revocation verification of Hu “verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked.” (Hu [Abstract]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. revocation verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to improve the verification efficiency of the verification node when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked, and reduces the calculation amount of the verification node” Hu [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 12,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
wherein the one or more policy actions associated with the particular insurance policy comprises reinstating the particular insurance policy.
(Fohr [0037] insurance carriers requiring detailed information on potential/renewing insureds
Fohr [0055] initiate and collect information for policy renewal.
Fohr [0453] will be notified if the coverage is reinstated.)
Regarding Claim 13,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 12 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
representing reinstating the particular insurance policy;
(Fohr [0037] insurance carriers requiring detailed information on potential/renewing insureds
Fohr [0055] initiate and collect information for policy renewal.
Fohr [0453] will be notified if the coverage is reinstated.)
responsive to determining that there are one or more zero-value transactions representing the cancellation policy action; verifying that there is a respective zero-value transaction... at least one for each cancellation policy action.
(Fohr [0007] if the insured does not pay the premium and the policy is canceled
Fohr [0030] policies' effective periods.
Fohr [0010] workflow insurance verification)
Fohr does not teach wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked further comprises, …, verifying that there is a respective zero-value transaction... at least one for each cancellation policy action.
Ramadoss explicitly teaches,
that there are one or more zero-value transactions; includes zero-value transactions; that there is a respective zero-value transaction;
(Ramadoss[0181] configured to store a zero value in the data element configured to store a transaction amount, and may be configured to store at least a network identifier or encoded value based thereon, an address identifier, and a transaction amount
Ramadoss[0207] Note valuators should make sure the borrower has appropriate insurance …. In addition, if the policy is changed or canceled)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the two-step verification of Ramadoss “for authorizing blockchain transactions and linking blockchain transactions to privately verified identities.” (Ramadoss [0031]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. two-step verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the blockchain provides a distributed mechanism for reliably verifying a data entity such as an entity constituting or representing the potential to consume a resource” Ramadoss [0055])
Ramadoss does not teach wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying
Hu teaches,
wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying
(Hu [Abstract] blockchain certificate revocation method comprises...when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked
Hu [page 8] If there is no corresponding third branch path in any leaf node or branch node or extension node, it means that the certificate to be verified has not been revoked.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the revocation verification of Hu “verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked.” (Hu [Abstract]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. revocation verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to improve the verification efficiency of the verification node when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked, and reduces the calculation amount of the verification node” Hu [Abstract])
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Claim 21 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 25,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
hash index
(Fohr [0118] Hashing or a hash function is any function that can be used to map data of arbitrary size to fixed-size values. ... The values are used to index a fixed-size table called a hash table)
Fohr does not teach wherein each hash value comprises a unique set of characters and is associated with a particular digital certificate, and wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying that no hash value in the hash … is associated with the digital certificate.
Hu teaches,
wherein each hash value comprises a unique set of characters and is associated with a particular digital certificate,
(Hu [page 7] the metadata includes a credential identifier, which can be in a standard 32-byte hexadecimal UUID (Universally Unique Identifier) format.)
and wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying that no hash value in the hash … is associated with the digital certificate.
(Hu [page 4] if the issuing node wants to announce the revocation status of the certificate, under normal circumstances, a large prime value will be assigned to the revoked certificate, and the cumulative multiplier of the large prime value of all revoked certificates will be published on the chain
Hu [page 8] can be used to verify the revocation status of the certificate to be verified; if the verification node determines If the first hash value and the second hash value are inconsistent, it is determined that the obtained MPT is an incorrect MPT….After verifying the correctness of the acquired MPT, the verification node can determine whether the identifier of the certificate to be verified)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the revocation verification of Hu “verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked.” (Hu [Abstract]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. revocation verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to improve the verification efficiency of the verification node when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked, and reduces the calculation amount of the verification node” Hu [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 27,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 21 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
representing one or more actions associated with a particular digital certificate.
(Fohr [0037] where the COI information is updated as the insurance status changes.)
Fohr does not teach each wherein blockchain account address in the blockchain account index is associated with a transaction history detailing zero-value transactions
Ramadoss teaches,
each wherein blockchain account address in the blockchain account index is associated with a transaction history detailing zero-value transactions ; detailing zero-value transactions representing one or more actions
(Ramadoss[0181] configured to store a zero value in the data element configured to store a transaction amount, and may be configured to store at least a network identifier or encoded value based thereon, an address identifier, and a transaction amount Ramadoss [0053] transactions recorded in the blockchain may include a destination address and a currency amount, such that the blockchain records how much currency is attributable to a specific address. )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the two-step verification of Ramadoss “for authorizing blockchain transactions and linking blockchain transactions to privately verified identities.” (Ramadoss [0031]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. two-step verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the blockchain provides a distributed mechanism for reliably verifying a data entity such as an entity constituting or representing the potential to consume a resource” Ramadoss [0055])
Regarding Claim 28,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 27 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
wherein the one or more actions associated with a particular digital certificate
(Fohr [0037] where the COI information is updated as the insurance status changes.)
does not teach wherein one or more policy actions associated with a particular insurance policy
( Fohr [0138] based on an Insured's existing policy numbers.
Fohr [0007] if the insured does not pay the premium and the policy is canceled)
indicating that the particular digital certificate is valid.
(Fohr [0029] dissemination, monitoring, and validation of Certificates of Insurance (COI) and/or proof of insurance)
Fohr does not teach comprises one or more zero-value transactions
Ramadoss teaches,
comprises one or more zero-value transactions
(Ramadoss[0181] configured to store a zero value in the data element configured to store a transaction amount, and may be configured to store at least a network identifier or encoded value based thereon, an address identifier, and a transaction amount)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the two-step verification of Ramadoss “for authorizing blockchain transactions and linking blockchain transactions to privately verified identities.” (Ramadoss [0031]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. two-step verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the blockchain provides a distributed mechanism for reliably verifying a data entity such as an entity constituting or representing the potential to consume a resource” Ramadoss [0055])
Regarding Claim 29,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 28 as described earlier.
Fohr teaches,
indicating that the particular digital certificate is valid.
(Fohr [0029] dissemination, monitoring, and validation of Certificates of Insurance (COI) and/or proof of insurance)
Fohr does not teach comprises one or more zero-value transactions; wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying
Ramadoss teaches,
comprises one or more zero-value transactions
(Ramadoss[0181] configured to store a zero value in the data element configured to store a transaction amount, and may be configured to store at least a network identifier or encoded value based thereon, an address identifier, and a transaction amount)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the two-step verification of Ramadoss “for authorizing blockchain transactions and linking blockchain transactions to privately verified identities.” (Ramadoss [0031]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. two-step verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the blockchain provides a distributed mechanism for reliably verifying a data entity such as an entity constituting or representing the potential to consume a resource” Ramadoss [0055])
Ramadoss does not teach verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying
Hu teaches,
wherein verifying that the digital certificate has not been revoked comprises verifying
(Hu [Abstract] blockchain certificate revocation method comprises...when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked
Hu [page 8] If there is no corresponding third branch path in any leaf node or branch node or extension node, it means that the certificate to be verified has not been revoked.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the revocation verification of Hu “verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked.” (Hu [Abstract]) The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. revocation verification) to a known concept (i.e. digital certificate verification) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “to improve the verification efficiency of the verification node when the verification node verifies whether the certificate is revoked, and reduces the calculation amount of the verification node” Hu [Abstract])
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie in view of Androulaki (“BLOCKCHAIN BASED VERIFIABILTY OF USER STATUS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20220150073 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
Fohr, Ramadoss, Hu, and Ogilvie teach the insurance policy verification of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Fohr does not teach wherein receiving, from the first computing device, the digital certificate comprises scanning, by the second computing device, a Quick Response (QR) code associated with the digital certificate displayed on the first computing device.
Androulaki teaches,
wherein receiving, from the first computing device, the digital certificate comprises scanning, by the second computing device, a Quick Response (QR) code associated with the digital certificate displayed on the first computing device.
(Androulaki [Claim 3] wherein the processor is configured to scan a quick response code via an imaging device, where the quick response code comprises the data object encoded therein
Androulaki [0053] verifier 140 can read the machine-readable code 120 with an imaging device such as a camera, scanner, etc., decode the machine-readable code 120, and identify an issuer from a field of the decoded machine-readable code.
Androulaki [0055] To facilitate communication ...provides an API for scanning and decoding the QR code with the certificate data encoded therein, an API for determining an issuer identifier from the scanned QR code, an API for getting the schema of the credential from the scanned QR code, an API for requesting the public key of the issuer from the blockchain network, and the like.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital certificate verification system of Fohr to incorporate the QR encoding teachings of Androulaki for “scanning and decoding the QR code with the certificate data encoded therein.” (Androulaki [0073]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. digital certificate verification) to a known concept (i.e. QR encoding) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The resulting QR code 120 may be printed to paper, transmitted to a mobile application on a user device, or the like. Thus, a user can carry around the QR code 120 to prove that the user has passed a particular health-related test, or the like.” Androulaki [0046])
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on March 26, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Objection
Applicant's amendments rectify the previous objection.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the previous objection of claims have been fully addressed.
The objection is lifted.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“Applicant submits herewith the attached Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration of Inventor Chandan Mishra. … the Mishra Declaration provides record evidence of this technical improvement and practical application, and establishes a clear nexus between the claimed invention and evidence of improvement to functioning of a computer as alleged by the Applicant "
Examiner responds:
Examiner addressed this matter earlier under “Response to Declaration” starting on page 4.
The Applicant states:
“Thus, the claimed are drawn to improving policy verification methods…invention involves the interaction of a computing system with a blockchain network, wherein the computing system performs the two- step verification process using the blockchain network as the means of verifying the validity of a digital certificate (e.g., an insurance policy). "
Examiner responds:
Examiner contends that “perform(ing) the two- step verification process …as the means of verifying the validity of a digital certificate (e.g., an insurance policy)" is not technological endeavor but rather an abstract business procedure. It does not constitute a technological innovation. The focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
A "a two-step verification …to verify that the digital certificate is valid, wherein a first step of the two-step verification comprises: comparing a hash value associated with the insurance policy to one or more hash values in a hash index, wherein each hash value of the one or more hash values is associated with a revoked insurance policy and excludes confidential information of an associated policyholder" is deemed as gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data that expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
The “interaction of a computing system with a blockchain network, wherein the computing system … using the blockchain network” are deemed as additional elements. However, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional computer and blockchain technologies for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. See MPEP 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The invention of the instant application “merely applies” conventional technological components to an abstract idea and does not improve any technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(d) for overcoming “well-understood, routine, and conventional” designation by utilizing a non-conventional network and “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” yielding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technological field.
This assertion is further supported by the Remarks that read, “By using blockchain technologies, the system allows relevant parties to perform real-time
verification of digital certificates without having to deal with delays or fraud tied to the historical reliance on physical papers.” The invention relies upon the inherent nature (immutability) of generic blockchain technologies.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Examiner applied new/additional prior art against the Applicant's amendments.
New prior art includes:
Ogilvie (“ANONYMITY-PRESERVING RECIPROCAL VETTING FROM A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE”, US Publication Number: US 20100049803 A1).
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wikipedia (“Cryptographic hash function”, 26 November 2020), states, “An important application of secure hashes is the verification of message integrity. Comparing message digests (hash digests over the message) calculated before, and after, transmission can determine whether any changes have been made to the message or file.”
Wikipedia (Checksum, 16 June 2020) describes as “a checksum function or checksum algorithm. … of cryptographic hash functions, which may be used to detect many data corruption errors and verify overall data integrity; if the computed checksum for the current data input matches the stored value of a previously computed checksum, there is a very high probability the data has not been accidentally altered or corrupted.”
Sun (“BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE TO AFFINITY GROUPS”, Chinese Publication Number: CN 110489492 A) proposes a block chain-based accurate identification method for medical insurance, which belongs to the technical field of smart contracts and block chains. The blockchain-based medical insurance accurate identification method of the present invention establishes blockchain infrastructure in the P2P consensus network through the blockchain service provider of the cloud data center, and cooperates to realize the execution of smart contracts and new blockchain blocks Generation; the participating nodes of the blockchain jointly maintain a ledger, which records the execution of key medical data smart contracts in the life cycle of commercial medical insurance; through the issuance of tokens, the policyholder participates in providing health and medical conditions Secure channels and anonymization processing complete the sharing of medical and health data among participating nodes. The invention's blockchain-based accurate identification method for medical insurance can effectively solve the problem of mutual trust between insurance companies and policyholders, and has good promotion and application value.
Roll (“BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE TO AFFINITY GROUPS”, U.S. Patent Number: US 10664920 B1) proposes a blockchain techniques for providing insurance to an affinity group may include an enforcement server that receives a plurality of bidding actions (e.g., bid or no-bid) from a plurality of bidding entities in response to an auction of an opportunity to provide insurance for members of the affinity group. The server may compile transactions corresponding to the received bidding actions into a block of transactions (e.g., a round of bidding), distribute the block of transactions to validation entities to form a consensus on the highest bid, and update copies of a distributed ledger with the block of transactions. The server may identify a winning bid and provide affinity group member data to the winning bidding entity, thereby providing consumers with lower cost insurance and/or insurance that is more reflective of actual risk (or lack thereof). The affinity group may be updated over time and re-auctioned using the blockchain techniques.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights