DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s request for continued examination of 12/30/2025. Amendments to claim 7 have been entered. Claims 6, 12 and 18 were previously canceled. Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 13-17 have been canceled. Claim 7 is pending and has been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 .
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 1-5, 7-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 7 is directed to a device; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 7 recites a series of steps for managing a longevity-contingent instrument, e.g. a life insurance instrument, i.e. a contract for mitigating risk, which is a fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interaction and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of claim 7, in bold below and stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows.
7. (Currently amended) A computing device of a computing system, the computing device comprises:
an interface;
a local memory; and
a processing module operably coupled to the interface and the local memory, wherein the processing module executes operational instructions stored in the local memory to cause the processing module to function to:
extracting, from an evaluation request with regards to a digital record of a longevity- contingent instrument, baseline content that includes one or more of a contingency entity identifier (ID), an outcome provider ID, a value of a result of a triggered outcome, obligation requirements, and an obligation recipient ID, determine whether baseline content associated with a digital record of a longevity-contingent instrument is qualified for a proposed contingency-action token (CAT) for an object distributed ledger, wherein the baseline content further includes an obligation provider identifier (ID) and an outcome recipient ID, wherein the obligation provider ID is associated with providing of an obligation tied to the obligation recipient ID in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein the outcome recipient ID is associated with the result of the triggered outcome tied to the outcome provider ID in accordance with contingent outcome rules and an obligation status, wherein a positive obligation status indicates that the obligation has historically been provided in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein a contingency status indicates whether the triggered outcome has been triggered for a contingency entity identifier in accordance with the contingent outcome rules;
identifying an accreditation authority computing device based on a first identified corresponding accreditation authority associated with the obligation recipient ID;
obtaining, via the interface, baseline validation information from the accreditation authority computing device for the baseline content;
indicating that the baseline content is valid when the baseline validation information is the same as the baseline content;
establish contingency-action token (CAT) content for the CAT with regards to terms of use of the digital record of the longevity-contingent instrument for utilization within a longevity-contingent instrument secondary market, wherein the CAT content includes:
the baseline content,
a terms of use record of the terms of use to include a royalty component associated with the utilization of the digital record of the longevity-contingent instrument within the longevity-contingent instrument secondary market,
an obligation provider identifier record of the CAT that includes an original obligation provider identifier (ID) of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a new obligation provider ID,
an outcome recipient identifier record of the CAT that includes an original outcome recipient identifier of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a new outcome recipient ID, and
a priority portion of the CAT to include:
the terms of use record,
the obligation provider identifier record, and the outcome recipient identifier record;
generate a nonce utilizing a cryptographic function and based on the outcome recipient identifier record and a current timestamp;
determine a calculated cryptographic token value for the priority portion of the CAT;
update the CAT to include the nonce and the calculated cryptographic token value for the priority portion of the CAT;
obtain, via the interface, a copy of the object distributed ledger;
hash content of the CAT content utilizing a receiving public key of the object distributed ledger to produce a next transaction hash value;
encrypt the next transaction hash value utilizing a private key of the computing device to produce a next transaction signature;
generate a next block of a blockchain of the object distributed ledger to include the CAT content and the next transaction signature; and
cause, via the interface, inclusion of the next block as a new block in the object distributed ledger.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components operating with blockchain technology in a most conventional manner. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “computing device comprises: an interface; a local memory; and a processing module”, a “digital” record, an accreditation authority “computing device” and “a blockchain of the object distributed ledger”, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. The claimed “token” is merely a digital representation of the financial instrument, i.e. a life insurance policy which is automating a manual contract to apply in the blockchain network. Thus, claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed communicating information over generic networks and a generic blockchain of a distributed ledger, to perform the abstract idea. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network and within a generic blockchain, i.e. an immutable database, see at least FIG.1, “Examples of portable computing devices includes a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a handheld computer, a desktop computer, a cable television set-top box, an application processor, an internet television user interface, and/or any other device that includes a computing core a (e.g., providing the processing module functionality), one or more modems, sensors, and one or more user interfaces.”, “In particular, a blockchain of blockchain-encoded records is utilized to record transactions and updates associated with a particular longevity-contingent instrument.” and pages 66-68 of the specification) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h), such as leveraging blockchain technology as it was designed to be used. The language of obtaining, hashing encrypting, generating and causing inclusion are considered to recite, at a very high level of generality, how a generic block within a blockchain is updated and added. These steps do not present an inventive solution to a technical problem but instead merely recite well-known steps for storing data within a generic blockchain. Applicant is merely storing updated information on a blockchain through leveraging a computer as a tool in a most general manner.
Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does 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 elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network and a blockchain to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h), such as leveraging blockchain technology as it was designed to be used. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claim 7, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea for managing a longevity-contingent instrument, e.g. a life insurance instrument, i.e. a contract for mitigating risk, without significantly more.
The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for managing a longevity-contingent instrument, e.g. a life insurance instrument, i.e. a contract for mitigating risk) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed, communicating over a network and storing information on a blockchain) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for managing a longevity-contingent instrument, e.g. a life insurance instrument, i.e. a contract for mitigating risk) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, filed in the Remarks dated 12/30/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “The Applicant respectfully disagrees with this rejection and the reasoning thereof. Nevertheless, the Applicant has amended claim 7 and canceled claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13-17. The Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of amended claim 7 to distinguish from an abstract idea performed by a human person and provide more in the form of a very specific records security process.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Managing a longevity contingent contract, e.g. a life insurance policy, by determining entities, providers, policy value based on an event, obligation requirements and an obligation recipient has existed well before the advent of computing and blockchain technology. Applicant has automated a manual process through applying the abstract idea within a generic computing environment and blockchain network interacting in a very conventional manner. There are no technical implementation details such that the claimed steps provide any technical solution to a technical problem. The newly added steps of identifying, obtaining and matching information can be performed through mental evaluation as well. The immutability and security of the token, i.e. digital contract, is due to applying the abstract idea on a blockchain of a generic computer(s) as it was designed to be used. The specificity or type of information stored has no bearing on the abstract idea being concrete.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) discusses cases in which the Federal Circuit determined that the claims did not reflect an improvement to computer-functionality or other technology. For instance, if a claimed process can be performed without a computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit "cannot be characterized as an improvement in a computer" because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further discussion of these cases, and additional examples of what the courts have indicated does and does not show an improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached at 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693