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 the Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on April 07, 2026 for Application No. 18/496,158 filed on October 27, 2023 title: “Systems And Methods For Autonomous Generating And Maintaining Non-Fungible Token For Real-Time Subject Assessment”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 were pending. By the 04/07/2026 Response, claims 1, 6, 9, 16, and 18 have been amended, new claims 22-23 have been added, and claim 5 has been cancelled. Claim 4 was previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 6-23 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application was filed on 10/27/2023 and has US Provisional Applications No. 63/589,785 filed on 10/12/2023 and 63/421,723 filed on 11/02/2022. For the purpose of examination, the 11/02/2022 is considered to be the effective filing date.
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 1-3 and 6-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-3, 6-15, and 22-23 recite a computer system for autonomously generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment comprising processors and memory devices. Claims 16-21 recite a computer-implemented method for autonomously generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment comprising a series of steps. Therefore, the claims are directed to a machine and process which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 16, A computer-implemented method for autonomously generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment, the method implemented by a computer system including one or more processors and/or associated transceivers and at least one memory device, the method comprising:
(a) accessing, from one or more source locations via one or more processors and/or associated transceivers, a plurality of data associated with a subject history of a subject;
(b) inputting, via the one or more processors, the plurality of data to a trained model to receive an initial subject assessment as output from the trained model, wherein the model is trained with one or more training data sets including existing subject histories related to existing subjects, to correlate a sample subject’s history with one or more quantitative assessments of the subject’s reliability or value;
(c) generating, via the one or more processors, a container file to include a plurality to the one or more source of the plurality of data;
(d) generating, via the one or more processors, a non-fungible token (NFT) for the subject, the NFT including the initial subject assessment, to secure the initial subject assessment;
(e) securely storing, via the one or more processors, the NFT via the container file to restrict access to the NFT and the container file to authorized entities;
(f) retrieving, in response to an assessment control and via the one or more processors, the NFT and the container file;
(g) parsing, via the one or more processors, the container file to retrieve the pointer to the one or more source locations of the plurality of data to access the plurality of data;
(h) using the pointer, accessing, from at least the one or more source locations and via the one or more processors, updated data associated with the subject;
(i) re-executing, via the one or more processors, the trained model with the updated data;
(j) receiving, via the one or more processors, an updated subject assessment as output from the trained model;
(k) detecting, via the one or more processors, the updated subject assessment is different from the initial subject assessment; and
(l) in response to the detecting, via the one or more processors, updating the NFT to include the updated subject assessment.
The limitations (a), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j), and (l) are merely data accessing, storing, retrieving, parsing, accessing, receiving, and updating at a high level of generality, and thus they are insignificant extra-solution activity See MPEP 2106.05(g). Although these limitations are necessary to data accessing, gathering, storing, parsing, and updating, they do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. Also, the additional elements, such as a computer system including processors and memory devices to perform the limitations, the recited computer elements are recited at a high level of generality (see claims 1-3 and 5-15). The additional elements merely limit and confine the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a computer system comprising processors, memory devices, and transceivers) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The limitations (b), (c), (d), (i), and (k) are the steps for processing the received data and inputting the data to a trained model to receive an initial subject assessment as output from the trained model to generate a container file and a non-fungible token (NFT) for the subject, re-executing the trained model with the updated data to receive an updated subject assessment as output from the trained model, and detecting the updated subject assessment is different from the initial subject assessment. These limitations correspond to concepts of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” related to a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk - see the method Claims 16-21: “accessing data associated with a subject history of a subject” (claim 16), “accessing object assessments for objects associated with the subject” (claim 17), “wherein the subject is a physical object” (claim 18), “updated object data indicating ownership change of the object from a previous owner to a new owner” (claim 19), “wherein the subject is an individual person” (claim 20), and “the updated data indicating acquisition of a new object by the person” (claim 21)) and commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contract; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a computer system comprising processors, memory devices, NFT, a trained model, and transceivers). More specifically, the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions including generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment by inputting the received/generated data to a trained model to receive an initial subject assessment, re-executing the trained model with the received updated data to receive an updated subject assessment, detecting the difference between the initial subject assessment and updated subject assessment, and updating the NFT to include the updated subject assessment accordingly.
Thus, the claim recites a method for generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment (inputting the received/generated data to a trained model to receive an initial subject assessment, re-executing the trained model with the received updated data to receive an updated subject assessment, detecting difference between the assessments, and updating the container file), which is a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). This fall under the abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a computer system comprising processors and memory devices with the same elements and limitations as discussed in Claim 16. The computer system, memories, and transceivers all are recited at a high level of generality. The mere nominal recitation of computer components (such as a computer system comprising processors, memory devices, and transceivers) limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment but does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Therefore, Claim 1 also recites the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The claims (1 and 16) recite the additional computer elements including the processors, memory, a trained model, and transceivers with stored instructions to perform the accessing, inputting, generating, generating, storing, retrieving, parsing, accessing, re-executing, receiving, detecting, and updating steps. The recited additional elements in all steps are recited at a high level of generality and the limitations are done by the generically recited computer system. This is supported by Applicant’s Specification (see Publication No. 2024/0146532, paragraphs 97-107 and Figures 4-5). The additional elements limit and confine the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no than a generic computer to perform the generic computer functions including the steps of accessing, inputting, generating, generating, storing, retrieving, parsing, accessing, re-executing, receiving, detecting, and updating.
The newly added amendments, such as “wherein the model is trained with one or more training data sets including existing subject histories related to existing subject, to correlate a sample subject’s history with one or more quantitative assessments of the subject’s reliability or value”, are additional details for the existing functional steps of the independent claims which further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the 101 analysis. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Mere instructions to apply an exception “i.e. apply it” using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As noted in above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment by inputting the received/generated data to a trained model to receive an initial subject assessment, re-executing the trained model with the received updated data to receive an updated subject assessment, detecting difference between the initial subject assessment and the updated subject assessment, and updating the NFT to include the updated subject assessment. All these generic computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
Independent Claims 1 and 16 do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 elements of using a computer (a computer system comprising processors, memory devices, and transceivers) to perform the accessing, inputting, generating, generating, storing, retrieving, parsing, accessing, re-executing, receiving, detecting, and updating functions as claimed 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. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 6-15, and 17-23 depend on Claims 1 and 16 and thus include all of the limitations and features of their independent Claims 1 and 16. Therefore, the dependent claims also recite the same abstract idea as discussed in Claims 1 and 16.
Claim 2 includes additional elements “wherein the plurality of data includes historical reference data associated with the subject and sensor data captured by one or more sensors associated with the subject.” (Additional details for the plurality of data associated with the subject. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept).
Claims 3 and 17 include additional elements “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: access a plurality of object assessments for a respective plurality of objects associated with the subject; aggregate the plurality of object assessments to generate a supertoken associated with the subject; and update the NFT to include the supertoken.” (Additional instructions for accessing and aggregating the object assessments to generate a supertoken and updating the NFT. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept).
Moreover, although the preamble of claim 17 recites “The computer-implemented method …”, the steps of “accessing …”, “aggregating …”, ang “updating …” in the body are devoid of any reference to any computer or machine. The method steps in the claim are not clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also recites a Mental Process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Claims 6-7 and 18 include additional elements “wherein the subject is an object to be insured, and wherein the subject assessment includes a reliability score related to a value of the object based upon previous usage of the object.” and
“wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive the plurality of data corresponding to usage of the object by a plurality of persons.” (Additional details for the subject assessment includes a reliability score and the processor is programed receive the data corresponding to usage of the object by persons. These claims individually or in combination with others does not integrate the claims into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept).
Claims 8-9 and 19 include additional elements “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive updated object data associated with the object, the updated data indicating an ownership change of the object from a previous owner to a new owner; update the container file with at least one of the updated object data; and update the NFT based upon the updated container file.” and “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to cause the trained model to apply a decay factor to data associated with the previous owner of the object in generating subsequent subject assessments of the object.” (Additional instructions and details for receiving updated data and update the container file and the NFT, the processor is programmed to cause the trained model to apply a decay factor. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept).
Moreover, although the preamble of claim 19 recites “The computer-implemented method …”, the steps of “receiving ...”, “updating …”, “updating …”, and “causing …” in the body are devoid of any reference to any computer or machine. The method steps in the claim are not clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also recites a Mental Process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Claim 10 includes additional elements “wherein the plurality of data includes sensor data received from sensors disposed within a user computing device operated by the subject.” (Additional details for the data includes sensor data. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the claims into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept).
Claims 11-12 and 20 include additional elements “wherein the subject is an individual person, and wherein the subject assessment includes a quantitative assessment of one or more behaviors of the person.” and “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive the plurality of data corresponding to the one or more behaviors of the person during usage of multiple objects by the person.” (Additional details for the subject assessment and the processor is programmed to receive the data corresponds to behaviors of the person during the usage of multiple objects by the person. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept).
Claim 13 includes additional elements “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive updated object data associated with the subject, the updated data indicating an acquisition of a new object by the person; update the container file with at least one of the updated data; and update the NFT based upon the updated container file.” (Additional instructions for the processor is programmed to receive updated data and update the container file and the NFT. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept).
Claim 14 includes additional elements “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to input the updated object data into the trained model to generate a further updated subject assessment that incorporates data associated with the new object and usage thereof by the person.” (Additional instructions for the processor is programmed to input the updated data into the trained model to generate an updated subject assessment. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept).
Claim 15 includes additional elements “wherein the subject includes an object, and the plurality of data includes sensor data received from sensors disposed within the object.” (Additional details for the subject that includes an object and the data that includes sensor data. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept).
Claim 21 includes additional elements “further comprising: receiving updated object data associated with the subject, the updated data indicating an acquisition of a new object by the person; updating the container file with at least one of the updated object data; updating the NFT based upon the updated container file; and inputting the updated object data into the trained model to generate a further updated subject assessment that incorporates data associated with the new object and usage thereof by the person.” (Additional instructions for receiving updated object data, updating the container file and the NFT, and inputting the updated object data into the trained model to generate a further updated subject assessment. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept).
Moreover, although the preamble of claim 21 recites “The computer-implemented method …”, the steps of “receiving ...”, “updating …”, “updating …”, and “inputting …” in the body are devoid of any reference to any computer or machine. The method steps in the claim are not clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also recites a Mental Process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Claim 22 includes additional elements “wherein each existing subject history includes reference source data and sensor data related to the respective existing subject.” (Additional details for the plurality of data for the subject. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept).
Claim 23 includes additional elements “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: detect that one or more data elements are missing from the subject history; and retrieve the one or more missing data elements from a further source location.” (Additional details for detecting the missing data elements and retrieving the missing data elements. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the claims into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept).
Moreover, although the preamble of claim 23 recites “The computer-implemented method …”, the steps of “detecting ...” and “retrieving …” in the body are devoid of any reference to any computer or machine. The method steps in the claim are not clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also recites a Mental Process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. These additional recited limitations further narrow the scope of the abstract idea and are merely insignificant solution activities which only refine the abstract idea further and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, The dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method for generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment. There is no improvement to the computer hardware, the functioning of the computer itself, or the technical process. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, network, or system memory, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves the existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Claims are not Directed to an Abstract Idea
Per pages 9-12 of the Remarks, Applicant cites the 08-04-2025 USPTO Memo (from Charles Kim, Deputy Commissioner for Patents) and argues that the limitations:
“accessing, from one or more source locations via one or more processors and/or associated transceivers, a plurality of data associated with a subject history of a subject;
inputting, via the one or more processors, the plurality of data to a trained model to receive an initial subject assessment as output from the trained model, wherein the model is trained with one or more training data sets including existing subject histories related to existing subjects, to correlate a sample subject’s history with one or more quantitative assessments of the subject’s reliability or value;”
The Applicant argues that the limitations recite how the model is trained and how the trained model is used to generate an initial subject assessment, the above quoted elements enable automated, real-time, and improved tools for persistent up-to-date subject assessment that overcome technical disadvantages of known system, as evidence by the lack of any prior art rejections.
The Applicant further cites the Enfish case, argues that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, and that none of the amended claims recite “fundamental economic principles or practices,” or “commercial or legal interactions” because the amended claims recited elements “input the plurality …, wherein the model is trained …”.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has re-evaluated the present amended claims and still concluded that the pending claims recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s claims are directed to “a business solution” for “a business problem” for “insurance” of a subject (i.e., person), which is an abstract idea (a method of organizing human activity) and is supported by the Applicant’s claims (see the analysis in at least claims 16-21 in the 101 analysis above) and the Specification in the Background section in paragraphs 3-4:
[0003] There are many situations in which assessing and evaluating an object's history or a subject's history is useful or necessary. For example, when selling, purchasing, leasing, or insuring an object, it may be beneficial to have an accurate and complete history of the object, to improve any assessment or evaluation of that object. However, in many instances, an object's known history may be limited, and frequently out of date. In further instances, certain aspects of an object's history may be difficult to discern and/or monitor. As another example, when evaluating a subject's recorded vehicle usage history, such a history may not accurately reflect the subject's driving behavior.
[0004] Accordingly, it would be useful to have a system for securely collecting, storing, and updating information relating to objects and subjects and providing access to that information as needed. The systems and methods disclosed herein may also provide solutions to the ineffectiveness, insecurities, difficulties, inefficiencies, encumbrances, and/or other drawbacks of conventional techniques.
Applicant’s claimed invention is merely using the existing technology (in this case, the NFT and blockchain technology) as a tool to implement the abstract idea and used in its ordinary capacity. The alleged improvement in the claimed process for generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment does not concern an improvement to computer capabilities but instead relates to an alleged improvement in a business practice - generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment in which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity. The present amended claims do not identify any improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
The claims recite steps (a), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j), and (l) are merely for data accessing, gathering, storing, parsing, updating, and are recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity See MPEP 2106.05(g). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim.
The claims further recite the steps (b), (c), (d), (i), and (k) are for processing the received data and inputting the data to a trained model to receive an initial subject assessment as output from the trained model to generate a container file and a non-fungible token (NFT) for the subject, re-executing the trained model with the updated data to receive an updated subject assessment as output from the trained model, and detecting the updated subject assessment is different from the initial subject assessment.
The additional elements, such as the processors, memory, a trained model, and transceivers with stored instructions to perform the accessing, inputting, generating, generating, storing, retrieving, parsing, accessing, re-executing, receiving, detecting, and updating steps, all are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements limit and confine the abstract idea to a particular technological environment but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
The newly added amendments, such as “wherein the model is trained with one or more training data sets including existing subject histories related to existing subject, to correlate a sample subject’s history with one or more quantitative assessments of the subject’s reliability or value”, are additional details for the existing functional steps of the independent claims which further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the 101 analysis. The additional elements (both the previous and newly added) do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the present amended claims to patent-eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception “i.e. apply it” using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The present amended claims is focused on a method for generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment. There is no improvement to the computer hardware, the functioning of the computer itself, the technical process, or any other technology. This is different than the Enfish case, which is directed to a database software designed as a self-referential table that improves increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. There is no analogy between the present amended claims and the Enfish case. The only analogy between the present amended claims and the Enfish case is that they all utilize computer technology. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Per pages 12-13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Claim 1, as a whole, recites an integration into a practical application because the claim recites a method includes a specific arrangement of technical structures to address a technological problem of the inability of existing system to securely maintain and update information related to subjects/objects for up-to-date, compressive and quantitative on-demand assessments.
Applicant further cites the Example 46 (Claims 2 and 3) of the Revised 2019 PEG and argues that the claimed invention uses information provided by the judicial exception to take specific actions that enable automated, real-time, and improved tools for persistent up-to-date on demand subject assessments that overcome technical disadvantages of known systems. Applicant argues that the claims recited how these advantages are achieved, not merely the desired outcome.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the 101 analysis above, the amended claims, as a whole, merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment by inputting the accessed data to a trained model to generate a container file and a NFT which include an initial subject assessment, storing to restrict access to the NFT and the container file, retrieving and parsing the NFT and container file to retrieve the pointer to the source locations, accessing and re-executing the trained model with the accessed updated data to receive an updated subject assessment, detecting the updated subject assessment is different from the initial subject assessment, and updating the NFT to include the updated subject assessment accordingly. All these generic computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
The focus of the amended claims is on a method for generating and maintaining secure storage for real-time subject assessment, which is “a business solution” to “a business problem” and is supported in paragraphs 3-4 of the Specification. The amended claims do not identify an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The amended claims do not “use the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action and control the feed dispenser in a particular way” and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into the overall control scheme. Also, as analyzed in the 101 analysis above, the focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Thus, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. There is no analogy between the present amended claims and the Example. The only analogy between the present amended claims and the Example is that they all utilize computer technology. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant does not address the rejections of dependent claims 17, 19, 21, and 23.
In conclusion, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
An updated prior art search could not identify any art(s), individually or in combination with others, that teaches each and every element of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3 and 6-23 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights