DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 02/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1 and 6-10 are amended.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the applicant’s position that the “independent claims 1 and 6 are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components” because “a human is incapable of generating a NFT as recited in independent claims 1 and 6.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) creating service voucher with customer’s data. Specifically, the claims recite “gathering the customer’s data from a plurality of sources from records related to the services used by the customer and which identify the customer with a unique customer identifier; creating unique internal identifiers for the customer by mining from the records data associated with the customer so that the data can be used in ... transactions for the customer and associating the unique internal identifier with the unique customer identifier; creating the ... by attributing all of the gathered data of the unique customer identifier to a digital file; and associating the ... with a stored value for use in a ... that can be used by a customer to pay for services so that the ... acts as a voucher for services rendered to the customer; and parametrizing the gathered data so that all future data of a customer is attributable to the ... and linking the future data to the unique internal identifier of the customer.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for creating service voucher with customer’s data. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
It is also the applicant’s position that “claims 1 and 6 clearly are "integrated in a practical application"... because the ... claims 1 and 6 are directed to a new application or computer implemented function that is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but...an improvement to the capability of the system as whole.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain, NFT, smart contract, processor and memory merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of creating service voucher with customer’s data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. For example, the claims 1 and 6 recite limitation “creating the NFT by attributing all of the gathered data of the unique customer identifier to a digital file;”, this is applying tokenization to the abstract idea of creating service voucher with customer’s data. However, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The Applicant argues that “The claims of the subject patent application are necessarily rooted in computer technology” similar to DDR Holdings LLC. V. Hotels.com LP. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit determined that, although the patent claims at issue involved conventional computers and the internet, the claims addressed the problem of retaining website visitors who, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be transported instantly away from a host’s website after "clicking" on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. The Federal Circuit, thus, held that the claims were directed to statutory subject matter because they claimed a solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s position that the claims here are in line with those at issue in DDR Holdings. Unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, Applicant does not identify any problem particular to computer networks and/or the Internet that claims overcome. Instead, the claims use a general purpose computer to perform generic computer functions, i.e. “gathering the customer’s data from a plurality of sources from records related to the services used by the customer and which identify the customer with a unique customer identifier; creating unique internal identifiers for the customer by mining from the records data associated with the customer so that the data can be used in ... transactions for the customer and associating the unique internal identifier with the unique customer identifier; creating the NFT by attributing all of the gathered data of the unique customer identifier to a digital file; and associating the NFT with a stored value for use in a smart contract that can be used by a customer to pay for services so that the NFT acts as a voucher for services rendered to the customer; and parametrizing the gathered data so that all future data of a customer is attributable to the NFT and linking the future data to the unique internal identifier of the customer.” It describes steps involved in a business process rather than a technical function of a computer.
The applicant further argues that similar to Uniloc USA, Inc. V. LG Electronics USA, Inc., 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), the claims are “directed to improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated above, the claims recite steps involved in a business process rather than a technical function of a computer. the claims applying technology to perform the abstract idea. However, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally, the applicant argues that “claims 1 and 6 integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application” because “claims 1 and 6 which realizes stored value for the patient allows for efficient reconciliation of claims for use with smart contracts for payment of services which has not heretofore been achieved in the art.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Utilizing data as a form of payment is a commercial transaction, abstract idea. Applying technology to perform the abstract idea do not improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. (for detail 101 analysis, see pages 8-9 of this Office Action).
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s statement of “they recite significantly more... provide an inventive concept...”. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using blockchain, NFT, smart contract, processor and memory to create service voucher with customer’s data steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §103, the arguments have been fully considered.
It is the applicant’s position that Latorre et al. does not teach claims 1 and 6 limitation “gathering the customer’s data from a plurality of sources from records related to the services used by the customer and which identify the customer with a unique customer identifier;” because “it is not the patients' or
customers' for whom the multipurpose identifier is generated, but rather the individuals...”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Latorre et al. discloses an unified identification protocol that serves to identify individuals and their related data (abs). Since patients or customers are individuals. Therefore, Latorre et al. ¶0071-72 teaches the limitation.
It is also applicant’s position that Latorre et al. does not teach claims 1 and 6 limitation “creating unique internal identifiers for the customer by mining from the records data associated with the customer so that the data can be used in blockchain transactions for the customer and associating the unique internal identifier with the unique customer identifier;” because Latorre et al. discloses completely different kind of generation of multipurpose identifiers from the present claims” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Latorre et al. ¶0074 discloses “Every individual (client, professional ... ), ... registered in the system will have a unique and universal multipurpose identifier associated to, in a UUID format and/or others. Each of one can have one or more identifiers associated to the multipurpose identifier. Additionally, individuals can have associated distinct public/private identifiers from different entities (legal, academic, work, health and other organization identities), position level and permissions information, roles and access control lists (ACLS) and, additionally, different data compartments in their profile such as official identities, preferences for each organization, medical data, professional competences, etc.; the data of the individual is securely encrypted and stored locally in one or more electronic devices (mobile phone, smart watch, tablet, computer, ... ) and self-managed by the individual or by one or more verified legal guardians, registered and associated with such individual in the system.” Wherein the “unique and universal multipurpose identifier” maps to the “unique internal identifier”, and identifiers such as “one or more identifiers, distinct public/private identifiers” are mapped to the “unique customer identifier”. Latorre et al. teaches the limitation.
The applicant argues that Latorre et al. does not teach the amended claims 1 and 6 limitation “associating the NFT with a stored value for use in a smart contract that can be used by a customer to pay for services so that the NFT acts as a voucher for services rendered to the customer;” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Latorre et al. ¶0097 discloses “Token is defined by The Oxford Dictionary as "a thing serving as a visible or tangible representation of a fact, quality, feeling, etc." and also "a voucher that can be exchanged for goods or services, typically one given as a gift or forming part of a promotional offer." Tokenization of services and use of tokens creates many opportunities for incentivizing, rewarding or even 'paying' users and healthcare ecosystem stakeholders to pursue beneficial activities.”. and ¶0057 discloses “...the unified identification protocol allows to have different payments modes associated with an individual, entity and/or established relationships, and the multipurpose identifier can be used to make payments manually and/or automatically (such as smart-contracts).” Therefore, Latorre et al. teaches the limitation.
The applicant further argues that Vijayan does not teach the amended claims 1 and 6 limitation “creating the NFT by attributing all of the gathered data of the unique customer identifier to a digital file; and”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Vijayan col 2 lines 43-48 discloses “enables verified content creators to mint Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). NFTs can be created around a large range of real world media content and intellectual property. Movie studios can mint digital collectibles for their movies, characters, notable scenes and/or notable objects. Record labels can mint digital collectibles for artists, bands,” and col 8 lines 13-20 discloses “registry service which enable verified content creators to issue or mint Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). ... to mint an NFT to tokenize the character into a digital collectable. Possession of the NFT reflects the ownership of the collectible.” Therefore, Vijayan teaches the limitation.
With respect to the newly added claims 1 and 6 limitation “parametrizing the gathered data so that all future data of a customer is attributable to the NFT and linking the future data to the unique internal identifier of the customer.” Vijayan Fig. 6 item 606 and col 9 lines 32-38 teaches the limitation.
Therefore, Latorre et al. in view of Vijayan teaches the claims.
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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-4 are directed to a method and claims 6-10 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) creating service voucher with customer’s data. Specifically, the claims recite “gathering the customer’s data from a plurality of sources from records related to the services used by the customer and which identify the customer with a unique customer identifier; creating unique internal identifiers for the customer by mining from the records data associated with the customer so that the data can be used in ... transactions for the customer and associating the unique internal identifier with the unique customer identifier; creating the ... by attributing all of the gathered data of the unique customer identifier to a digital file; and associating the ... with a stored value for use in a ... that can be used by a customer to pay for services so that the ... acts as a voucher for services rendered to the customer; and parametrizing the gathered data so that all future data of a customer is attributable to the ... and linking the future data to the unique internal identifier of the customer.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for creating service voucher with customer’s data. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain, NFT, smart contract, processor and memory merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of creating service voucher with customer’s data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using blockchain, NFT, smart contract, processor and memory to create service voucher with customer’s data steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-10 describe NFT. These claims further recite the abstract idea of the certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain, NFT, smart contract, processor and memory merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of creating service voucher with customer’s data. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of a blockchain, NFT, smart contract, processor and memory as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20200211409A1 (“Latorre et al.”) in view of US Grant Publication US11348099B2 (“Vijayan”).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Latorre et al. discloses:
gathering the customer’s data from a plurality of sources from records related to the services used by the customer and which identify the customer with a unique customer identifier; (¶¶0071-72)
creating unique internal identifiers for the customer by mining from the records data associated with the customer so that the data can be used in blockchain transactions for the customer and associating the unique internal identifier with the unique customer identifier; (¶0071 and ¶0074)
associating the NFT with a stored value for use in a smart contract that can be used by a customer to pay for services so that the NFT acts as a voucher for services rendered to the customer; and (¶0057 and ¶0097)
Latorre et al. does not explicitly disclose:
creating the NFT by attributing all of the gathered data of the unique customer identifier to a digital file;
parametrizing the gathered data so that all future data of a customer is attributable to the NFT and linking the future data to the unique internal identifier of the customer.
However, Vijayan discloses:
creating the NFT by attributing all of the gathered data of the unique customer identifier to a digital file; and (col 2 lines 43-48, col 8 lines 18-33)
parametrizing the gathered data so that all future data of a customer is attributable to the NFT and linking the future data to the unique internal identifier of the customer. (Fig. 6 item 606; col 9 lines 32-38)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unified Identification Protocol in Training and Health of Latorre et al. by including tokenizing customer’s data and parametrizing the data and including all data attributes in the NFT in accordance with the teaching of Vijayan. This modification allows the tokenized customer data to be recorded and exchanged on blockchain and ensures completeness of the data in the NFT.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Latorre et al. in view of Vijayan discloses all limitations as described above. Vijayan further discloses:
wherein the NFT is created after the unique internal identifier has been associated with the unique customer identifier. (col 2 lines 43-48, col 8 lines 18-33)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unified Identification Protocol in Training and Health of Latorre et al. by including tokenizing customer’s data with the unique internal identifier in accordance with the teaching of Vijayan. This modification allows the minted NFT corresponds to the internal unique identifier.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Latorre et al. in view of Vijayan discloses all limitations as described above. Vijayan further discloses:
wherein the NFT is created before the unique internal identifier has been associated with the unique customer identifier. (col 2 lines 43-48, col 8 lines 18-33)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unified Identification Protocol in Training and Health of Latorre et al. by tokenizing customer’s data before the unique internal identifier associated with the unique customer identifier in accordance with the teaching of Vijayan. This modification allows the minted NFT corresponds to the unique customer identifier.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Latorre et al. in view of Vijayan discloses all limitations as described above. Vijayan further discloses:
wherein the NFT is associated with a different customer. (col 11 lines 8-12, col 20 lines 21-33)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unified Identification Protocol in Training and Health of Latorre et al. by associating NFT with a different customer in accordance with the teaching of Vijayan. This modification illustrates that the NFT transaction is recorded on the ledger.
Regarding claim 10, Latorre et al. in view of Vijayan discloses all limitations as described above. Vijayan further discloses:
parametrizing the data associated with the customer while attributing future data gathered to the NFT and linking so that all data attributable to the customer is stored in the NFT file. (Fig. 6 item 606; col 9 lines 32-38)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unified Identification Protocol in Training and Health of Latorre et al. by parametrizing the data and including all data attributes in the NFT in accordance with the teaching of Vijayan. This modification ensures completeness of the data in the NFT.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20170013047A1 (“Hubbard et al.”) discloses a method and system for electronic data distribution comprises receiving, at a data provider computing system, a data contribution from a client device associated with a user, and based on the received data contribution, determining a user identifier that uniquely identifies the user. The method comprises performing a data validation operation to validate the data contribution. The method comprises, based on validating the data contribution, storing the data contribution in association with the user identifier. Further, the method comprises receiving a data request from a data consuming system. Based on the data request, the stored data contribution is identified and distributed to the data consuming system. Based on distribution of the data contribution to the data consuming system, a distribution value associated with the data contribution is generated. An indication of the distribution value is stored in association with the user identifier.
US20190355472A1 (“Kutzko”) discloses a method and system for providing cost effective therapy for a patient include receiving healthcare data of a patient having a new condition; determining a successful therapy for the new condition; calculating a probability of disease progression for the new condition; determining a possible therapy for the new condition; calculating a cost quote for the possible therapy; and creating a smart contract for the possible therapy.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697