DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2.. An RCE with accompanying Amendment was filed February 17, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Final Rejection dated December 3, 2025.
Despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejections under §101 and §103 as set forth in the Final Rejection are hereby maintained; however, the Rejection under §103 is based on NEW GROUNDS as explained below.
An explanation of the maintained Rejection and a response to Applicant’s arguments are set forth below. Please see the “Conclusion” section of this Action below for important information regarding responding to this Action.
The IDS dated February 20, 2026 has been considered.
NOTE: Interviews are welcome at any stage of prosecution. Please use the AIR form, the link for which is found in the Conclusion section of this Action.
While the previous interview was helpful in narrowing the issues, the Amendment does not advance prosecution sufficiently to reach an agreement on eligibility and nonobvious subject matter. A further interview would be helpful in this regard.
Status of the Claims:
Claims 1 – 18 are pending in this Application.
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 15 were amended in substantially identical manner.
The dependent Claims were not amended.
Therefore, the following explanation of the maintained rejections with regard to Claim 1 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 1 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
602
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Summary of the Amendment and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation:
Claim terminology is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with the specification. This is true, unless the terms are given a special meaning. See MPEP §2111.01
Here, no special meaning is detected. As noted in the Amendment, the
changes to Claim 1 relate generally to:
The data manipulation process – e.g. encryption process – relates to selected pieces of personal or confidential information
This is done to preserve privacy
The manipulation is accomplished via the pre-agreed upon process by the participating financial institutions (FI), which feature was previously recited
The “additional information” that is shared once a match is accomplished is defined as background and transactional information”
It appears from the specification that these terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning, subject to further consideration and analysis. These terms are discussed at 00446 – 00452.
With regard to §101:
Respectfully, while the Claim has been amended, it does not recite the specificity required to integrate a practical application into the claim which is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the Amendment does not advance prosecution substantially nor does it alter the analysis set for the Non-Final Rejection regarding §101.
No additional computerized components are recited. The above newly added limitations relating to selected pieces of private information are recited at an extremely high level. The items of additional information – background and transactional information – are recited at an extremely high level and are broad and generic concepts. There is no recitation of “how” or “who” broadcasts the identity code or “how” the private information of the subject is protected by encryption or “manipulation.” There is no specific recitation of “how” the matching is accomplished.
Broadcasting, manipulating data, and transmitting alerts are among the most basic and common computerized functions. These limitations are recited at a very high level of generality. The Claim provides no specificity in terms of how these functions are accomplished. These limitations recite results or “outcome” of computer processing without specifying “how” a technical problem is solved. That is, the solution of a technical problem is not reflected in the Claim.
The currently recited limitations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the Claim add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer elements at each step of the process is purely typical of processing identity codes to preserve privacy. Without greater specificity as to “how” certain functions solve a technical problem,
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer elements nor does the claim reflect how an improvement in any other technology or technical field is achieved. Thus, Claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to “apply” the abstract idea of encrypting privacy data and sharing it with other users using generic computer components. Such is not sufficient to integrate a practical application in the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Rejection is maintained.
With regard to §103:
It is submitted that the primary reference to Song I teaches the newly added limitations. Pre-agreed manipulating and encryption is discussed at 0017 and 0042-0046. Matching by FI’s is taught at 0028. The types of additional information including background information on an individual is clearly taught at 0029.
Moreover, the suggestion of “broadcasting” identity codes is mentioned in Song I, as clearly set forth in the Final Rejection. Nevertheless, for the avoidance of doubt, a NEW GROUNDS of Rejection is asserted:
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,533,808 to Song et al. (hereinafter “Song I”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. No. 2008/0110982 to Song II (hereinafter “Song II”) and further in view of Non-Patent Literature to Vartanian et al., “Information Sharing Under The USA Patriot Act,” Law Firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, 2004 (hereinafter “Vartanian”)
Vartanian is in the exact field as the claimed invention and Song I and Song II – detecting and defeating money laundering by means of information sharing under the Patriot Act. It describes the well-known functions and activities of the Dept. of Treasury FinCEN and details its “information sharing rules.” Pertinent to the pending Claims, Vartanian describes the FinCEN broadcasting activities as follows at p. 604:
PNG
media_image2.png
355
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While only mentioning a request being sent to a single FI, the Claim is equally singular. That is, only a single “second computer system” is recited. Furthermore, it is clear from the above teachings, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that multiple “requests” would be forwarded to multiple FI’s as required to detect money laundering. Again, the Claim is not limited to any greater extent – it merely uses the word “broadcast.” No further limitations are recited.
It is clear from Vartanian that the intent of the Patriot Act, from the very beginning, was to encourage the sharing of identity information, in whatever form or in any manner possible. Furthermore, Vartanian teaches that if a match is found, the FI is obligated to share additional information with FinCEN.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified the combined data sharing system of Song I and Song II, with the teachings of Vartanian, wherein a central computing system (FinCEN) broadcasts to a wide network of participating FI’s requests for information. The motivation to do so comes from Song I. As quoted above and in the Final Rejection, Song I teaches extensively the use of sharing identifying information of a party to a transaction with participants in the broad effort to defeat money laundering. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system of Song I to use the broadcast teachings of Vartanian.
Therefore, the Rejection must be maintained.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Remarks section of the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to section 101 and 103 rejection, Applicant argues as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
122
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These are merely conclusory comments. Therefore, no response is deemed necessary.
The Rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. encrypting private identity information). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0133782 to Sander et al. This reference relates to the concept of broadcasting identifying information.
PCT Patent Publication No. WO 2016/138183 to Moss et al. This reference relates to the concept of broadcasting and matching private data.
Non-Patent Literature to Hong et al., “Peer to Peer Anti-Money Laundering Resource Allocation based on Semi-Markov Decision Process,” School of Economics and Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China 2015
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS). To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
(571) 272-0017 - office
william.bunker@uspto.gov
March 7, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691