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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on March 20, 2026.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-12, 15, and 18-20 were amended.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 were cancelled.
Claims 21-23 were added.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws the objection to claims 15 and 18-20 in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea pursuant to Step 2A Prong 1 analysis. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention recited a certain method of organizing human activity for two reasons. First, the claimed invention recited a transaction processing method, which is an example of a fundamental economic practice. Second, the transaction processing function is also an example of a commercial interaction. In cases where a claimed invention falls into more than one grouping of abstract ideas, Examiner must choose only one. For Applicant’s claimed invention, Examiner characterized the abstract idea as a certain method of organizing human activity because it is an example of a fundamental economic principle or practice. Applicant’s argument regarding whether the claimed invention can be performed in the human mind is moot because Examiner’s 101 rejection does not rely on such a finding. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because claim 1 recites an abstract idea that is integrated into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, claim 1 does not improve the functioning of a computer by improving the execution efficiency of a data processing service through elimination of redundant processing. The improvement of the data processing service does not translate to an improvement of computer functionality because the data processing service is merely an abstract idea implemented in a computer environment, and the data processing service itself has no influence over the operation of the computer. The claimed invention may represent an improvement of the data processing service, but improving upon an abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because claim 15 includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Applicant referenced portions of claim 15 as evidence of unconventional features that confined the claims to a particular useful application that also amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea. However, the portions of claim 15 referenced by Applicant are a part of the abstract idea identified by Examiner. Unconventional abstract ideas are still abstract and are not patent eligible. An improved abstract idea executed on a computer also does not translate to an improvement of the computer itself. Claims 1 and 8 are also not patent eligible for similar reasons. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest, “the token having been generated during a prior transaction, the token comprising: a hash corresponding to the data; and first version information that specifies a first set of processing functionality applied to the data during the prior transaction”. Examiner disagrees. The Keshava reference teaches “the token having been generated during a prior transaction, the token comprising: a hash corresponding to the data; and first version information that specifies a first set of processing functionality applied to the data during the prior transaction” (see Keshava: pgh 231). Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that the prior art did not teach or suggest, “in response to validating the token, determining, based on the first version information obtained from the token and second version information associated with the data processing service, a second set of processing functionality that is additional to the first set of processing functionality; processing the data using the second set of processing functionality during a subsequent transaction.” Examiner agrees. The prior art does not teach or suggest “in response to validating the token, determining, based on the first version information obtained from the token and second version information associated with the data processing service, a second set of processing functionality that is additional to the first set of processing functionality; processing the data using the second set of processing functionality during a subsequent transaction”. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive and withdraws the 103 rejection of claim 1.
Applicant argued that independent claims 8 and 15 are patentable for the same reasons that claim 1 is patentable. Examiner agrees. Independent claims 8 and 15 are patentable for the same reasons that claim 1 is patentable because claims 8 and 15 contain limitations similar to those found patentable in claim 1. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive and withdraws the 103 rejection of claims 8 and 15.
Applicant argued that dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23 are patentable based on the patentability of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Examiner agrees. Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23 are patentable based on their dependency from patentable claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive and withdraws the 103 rejection of claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23.
Claim Analysis - 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 is/are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent product claim 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1 and system Claim 8. Claim 15 recites the following limitations:
[A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:]
obtaining a token associated with data previously processed by a data processing service, the token having been generated during a prior transaction, the token comprising:
a hash corresponding to the data; and
first version information that specifies a first set of processing functionality applied to the data during the prior transaction;
decrypting the token using a secret key associated with the data processing service to obtain the hash and the first version information, computing a current hash of the data, and validating the token by comparing the current hash to the hash obtained from the token;
in response to validating the token, determining, based on the first version information and second version information associated with the data processing service, a second set of processing functionality that is additional to the first set of processing functionality;
processing the data using the second set of processing functionality during a subsequent transaction; and
after applying the second set of processing functionality during the subsequent transaction, generating an updated token associated with the data, the updated token comprising:
an updated hash corresponding to the data; and
updated version information that specifies the first set of processing functionality and the second set of processing functionality as applied to the data.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic 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. The non-transitory computer readable medium in Claim 15 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 1 and 8 are also abstract for similar reasons. (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 non-transitory computer readable medium. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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(s) 1, 8, and 15 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)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23 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, dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are not patent-eligible.
Prior Art Analysis
The cited references of Kunjal (WO 2023121726), Marechal (US 20200348921), Keshava (US 20170331802), Liebmann (US 20210377044), Sim (WO 2022102815), and Caldato (US 20190102157) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Kunjal teaches a system, method, and computer program product for a data controller platform. Marechal teaches a microservice update system. Keshava teaches key generation and rollover for a cloud-based identity management system. Liebmann teaches ephemeral cryptography keys for authenticating computing services. Sim teaches a method for providing transaction service of ownership item asset using blockchain network-based irreplaceable token. Caldato teaches a method for distributing microservice containers for a service across a plurality of computing environments. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations of “…in response to validating the token, determining, based on the first version information and second version information associated with the data processing service, a second set of processing functionality that is additional to the first set of processing functionality; processing the data using the second set of processing functionality during a subsequent transaction; and after applying the second set of processing functionality during the subsequent transaction, generating an updated token associated with the data, the updated token comprising: an updated hash corresponding to the data; and updated version information that specifies the first set of processing functionality and the second set of processing functionality as applied to the data”, as recited in claim 1. Similar limitations are found in independent claims 8 and 15, thereby making claims 8 and 15 patentable for similar reasons. Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23 depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively and are patentable based on the patentability of claims 1, 8, and 15. For these reasons, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Bakshan (US 20230315867) discloses the lifecycle management of secrets in a cloud microservices architecture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
April 24, 2026
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights