DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed June 30, 2026.
Claims 1, 9, 15-18, and 19 are pending
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(s)
Claims 1, 9, 15-18, and 19 are pending
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, 9, 15-18, and 19 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C 101 as not being directed to eligible subject matter based on the grounds set out in detail below:
Independent Claims 1 and 9:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
Independent claim 1 falls within the statutory category of method.
Independent claim 9 falls within the statutory category of machine.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Independent claims 1 and 9 (claim 1 being representative) claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim elements which set forth the abstract idea in the independent claims (claim 1 being representative) is:
a user who is a vaccinator,
permitted to view, but is not permitted to modify or delete, data
an identifier of the trusted institution
and transmitting
storing, the certificate identifier
determining, whether to invalidate or re-issue the vaccination certification VC
recording, information indicating that the vaccination certification VC is invalid in association with the certificate identifier when the vaccination certification VC is invalidated based on a result of the determining;
and transmitting, a re-issued vaccination certification VC, reflecting when the vaccination certification VC is re-issued based on the result of the determining,
wherein the recorded information enables to determine that the vaccination certification VC is invalid, by deriving a hash value from contents of the vaccination certification VC received from
identifying the certificate identifier using the hash value derived and checking the information recorded in association with the identified certificate identifier, without communication
This abstract idea is “certain methods of organizing human activity” as it is managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions to transmit, issue or validate, and store a vaccination certification MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For Independent claims 1 and 9 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the additional claim elements below:
a trusted institution server associated with a trusted institution
a medical institution device associated with a medical institution
a user device
a third party device and a blockchain network that includes a public distributed ledger
a first storage space of the public distributed ledger being set to be modifiable only by the trusted institution server
a second storage space of the public distributed ledger, wherein the second storage space of the public distributed ledger is modifiable by the user device
a digital signature of the medical institution, to the trusted institution server;
a vaccine database
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
No additional element is performing the abstract idea.
The additional element, a trusted institution server associated with a trusted institution, merely “apply-it” as its used as generic computer tool to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional element, a medical institution device associated with a medical institution, is merely “apply-it” as it is used as a generic computer tool to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional element, a user device, is merely “apply-it” as it is used as a generic computer tool to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional element, a third party device with a blockchain network that includes a public distributed ledger, is merely generally linking the abstract idea to the environment of blockchain
The additional element, a first storage space of the public distributed ledger being set to be modifiable only by the trusted institution server, is merely “apply-it” as it used as a generic computer tool to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional element, a second storage space of the public distributed ledger, wherein the second storage space of the public distributed ledger is modifiable by the user device, is merely “apply-it” as it used as a generic computer tool to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional element, a digital signature of the medical institution, to the trusted institution server, is merely “apply-it” as it used as a computer tool to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional element, a vaccine database stored in the trusted institution server, is merely “apply-it” as it used as a generic computer tool to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 9 as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(1)).
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer element as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, is merely applying the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible.
Dependent Claims 15-18 and 19:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?): The dependent claims 15-18 fall within the statutory category of method and claim 19 falls within the statutory category of machine.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Dependent claims 15-18 and 19 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims continue to limit the independent claim 1 and 9 abstract idea by (1) displaying information (2) registering and authenticating a user, (3) issuing the vaccination certification VC, and (4) verifying VC via comparison of issuer and user, and further limiting comparisons of data to present. Therefore, the dependent claims inherit the same abstract idea which is “certain methods of organizing human activity” as it is managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions to transmit, issue or validate, and store a vaccination certification MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2))
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For claims 15-18 and 19 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite the additional elements not already recited in the independent claims below.
a screen of the user device display
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional element, a screen of the user device display, is merely “apply-it” as it is used as a tool to output data. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the dependent claims as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(1).
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more for the same reasons given in Prong 2. The claims are patent ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims (Claim 1 recited here as representative). In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: “recording, by the trusted institution server, information indicating that the vaccination certification VC is invalid in association with the certificate identifier in the first storage space, when the vaccination certification VC is invalidated based on a result of the determining; and transmitting, by the trusted institution server to the user device, a re-issued vaccination certification VC reflecting the updated vaccine database, when the vaccination certification VC is re-issued based on the result of the determining, wherein the recorded information enables the third party device to determine that the vaccination certification VC is invalid, by deriving a hash value from contents of the vaccination certification VC received from the user device, identifying the certificate identifier stored in the first storage space using the hash value derived by the third party device, and checking the information recorded in association with the identified certificate identifier, without communication with the trusted institution server.” For additional reasons see pages 9-10 of remarks dated 06/30/2026
DAY et. al (hereinafter DAY) (US20220191048A1)
A vaccination certificate is provided with at least one optically readable marking that encodes a digital signature of the identity of a patient , and well as data relating to a vaccine and its administration to the patient . The digital signature enables verification of purportedly correct information without needing to know the personal identifying information of the patient , and without querying an external database . A salt value may also be added to the patient identity information to increase entropy in the digital signature
Anderson et. al (hereinafter Anderson) (US20210287770A1)
An issuer client of a service provider establishes a trusted , private , and cryptographically secured connection with a wallet application of a user through a cloud - based agent and provides credential information to the wallet application via the private connection . The credential information is Connector Service Issuance Service Registered issuer Agent encrypted using a public key of the wallet application dedicated for the private connection with the cloud - based agent . Upon receiving the encrypted credential information , the wallet application decrypts it using a private key to obtain the credential information . The cloud - based agent digitally signs the credential information using a private key of the issuer client , which can be verified by a public key of the issuer client stored in a public identity ledger .
YANG (US20170353320A1)
secure element ( SE ) with a notion of time useful for checking secure items is disclosed herein . Use of Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI ) with secure elements is improved by verifying secure items used by an SE . Methods of obtaining time information by the SE include push , pull , opportunistic , local interface , and multi - check methods . The SE uses the time information to evaluate arriving and stored public key certificates and to discard those which fail the evaluation . The SE , in some embodiments , uses the time information in cooperation with certificate revocation lists ( CRLs ) and / or online certificate status protocol ( OCSP ) stapling procedures . A multi - check architecture is provided herein by which more than entity is involved in checking a time value before the time value reaches the SE . The multi - check architecture uses both PKI and blockchain techniques
US12047517B2– Choi
A method for sequential authentication based on chain of authentication using public key infrastructure (PKI) is provided. The method includes abutting a first wearable device belonging to a first party with a second wearable device belonging to a second party; transmitting, by the first wearable device, authentication information of the first party; verifying the authentication information of the first party; transmitting, by the second wearable device, authentication information of the second party; verifying the authentication information of the second party; authorizing electronic transaction in response to successfully verifying both the authentication information of the first party and the authentication information of the second party. Each of the authentication information of the first party and the authentication information of the second party includes information configured for authentication based on a public key infrastructure (PKI) certificate.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 Rejection
The applicant argues on pages 4-7 of the submitted remarks that claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant argues Claims 1, 4, 5, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection in view of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 9.
II. Step 2A, Prong One
The Examiner characterized the claim as "certain methods of organizing human activity," on the basis that it manages personal behavior and follows rules to transmit, issue, and store a vaccination certification.
As amended, claim 1 does not recite transmitting, issuing, and storing a certificate as a managed human activity. The claim instead recites operations performed by and among computing devices interacting with a public distributed ledger: deriving a hash value from the contents of a credential, identifying a stored certificate identifier using that hash value, and checking invalidity information recorded in association with that identifier in an access-controlled storage space. These are not acts by which a person organizes human behavior.
Applicant further submits that, even if the claim were viewed as touching upon an abstract concept, the claim as a whole integrates that concept into a practical application under Prong Two, as set forth below.
III. Step 2A, Prong Two
Under MPEP § 2106.04(d) and § 2106.05(a), a claim that reflects an improvement to a technology or technical field integrates a judicial exception into a practical application.
A. The technical problem.
The specification describes shortcomings of prior certificate systems. Paper certificates make it difficult to verify the authenticity of the certificate itself and carry a risk of personal- information leakage ( [0005]). Conventional electronic certificates are issued only by centralized institutions and once issued and held on a user's device, cannot be independently verified or confirmed to be current without contacting the issuing institution (11 [0006], [0048]). A credential may also become outdated or invalid after issuance - for example, where vaccine information is updated or a required follow-up vaccination is not performed - yet a third party has no way to confirm its current validity (11 [0078], [0193], [0205]-[0208]).
B. The claimed solution.
The amended claim addresses these problems through a specific arrangement of components and operations:
The first storage space is modifiable only by the trusted institution server, and the user device may view but not modify or delete its data. Because only the trusted institution can write to the first storage space, any party viewing data in that storage space can rely on its authenticity (11 [0049], [0060]). The Examiner's "generally linking to a blockchain environment" characterization does not address this access-control structure or its effect.
The certificate identifier stored in the first storage space is a hash value derived from the contents of the credential. In combination with the access-controlled first storage space, this enables a third party to check the integrity and current validity of a received credential after issuance.
The trusted institution server, upon updating the vaccine database, determines whether to invalidate or re-issue the already-distributed credential and records invalidity information in association with the hash-based certificate identifier. A third party device can then confirm invalidity by deriving the hash, locating the corresponding identifier, and checking the recorded information, without communication with the trusted institution server. This permits verification of a credential's current validity in a decentralized manner, without the issuing institution acting as an intermediary at verification time (11 [0048]-[0049], [0060], [0207]).
These operations are not a generic computer implementation of a manual process; they cannot be performed without the recited distributed-ledger architecture and hash-based identifier.
C. The additional elements must be considered as an ordered combination.
The Office Action analyzed each element - the trusted institution server, the user device, the blockchain network, and the first and second storage spaces - individually, and concluded that each is "apply-it" or "generally linking" to a technological environment. Under MPEP § 2106.04(d), the additional elements must be evaluated both individually and in combination.
Even assuming each component, taken alone, were conventional, the claimed combination is not: a distributed ledger partitioned by write access, storing a hash-derived certificate identifier, used for issuer-side invalidation and re-issuance and for issuer-independent third-party validity verification. The Office Action does not address this combination, which is what integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Claim 1, and corresponding claim 9, is therefore not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two.
IV. Step 2B
If the analysis reaches Step 2B, the rejection is not supported by the record.
The Office Action concludes only that the computer element "is merely applying the abstract idea." Under MPEP § 2106.05(d), a finding that additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional must be supported by a factual showing. The record contains no evidence that the recited combination - a distributed ledger partitioned by write access, storing hash-derived certificate identifiers, used for issuer-side invalidation/re-issuance and issuer-independent third-party validity verification - is well-understood, routine, or conventional. The specification describes this combination as the solution to problems left unaddressed by prior certificate systems ( [0005]-[0006], [0048]-[0049], [0205]-[0208]). Absent the requisite factual support, the Step 2B rejection should be withdrawn.
V. Independent Claim 9 and Dependent Claims
Independent claim 9 is a system claim that recites substantially the same technical features and operational constraints as independent claim 1, and therefore is patent-eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent claim 15 further limit the independent claims and necessarily recite patent- eligible subject matter at least to the extent of the allowable independent claim 1. Accordingly, no separate § 101 analysis is required for dependent claim 15.
In view of the remarks presented hereinabove, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are respectfully requested.
Examiner appreciates applicant’s argument but does not find them persuasive. The MPEP § 2106.04(a) The sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)", which "is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity." 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640 MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping.”
The instant application claims are “certain methods of organizing human activity” as it is managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions to transmit, issue or validate, and store a vaccination certification MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Examiner is tasked with considering the claim as a whole and determining what is abstract idea in the claim and what are additional elements. Examiner performed this analysis and did not overly simplify the claims as the claims clearly recite the management of vaccination records through communication of vaccination certification and this abstract idea is a form of human activity completed prior to the use of generic computers by humans following rules and instructions using pen and paper thus is directed to an abstract idea. The claims reciting computer elements such as blockchain or digital signatures or computers does not make the claim dispositive of being directed to an abstract idea.
In response to applicant’s argument that these claim steps technically constrain the issuance process and integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of decentralized credential issuance systems. Examiner notes to qualify as “a patent-eligible improvement,” the additional elements can bring forth the practical application but the abstract idea cannot (i.e. hash values) and the improvement must be directed to a specific improvement in the computer’s functionality, not simply to use of the computer “as a tool” to implement an abstract idea or other technological improvement confined to the computer environment in which the claim recites. The instant application claim language and the specification make clear, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of vaccination records through communication of vaccination certification. The instant application is confined to using the environment and elements of a general-purpose processor to carry out the abstract idea and while this does not doom the claims, the claims as recited do not reflect an improvement to the computers functionality but rather improve the abstract idea using mere application of the general computer elements (e.g. storage of information in blockchain) thus cannot bring about integration into a practical application. Furthermore, the functioning of decentralized credential issuance systems is not improved but rather the recited claims generally link to blockchain distributed ledgers as it is recited in the claim as storage with no further execution of technical implementation of this technology but rather additional data movement steps which follow rules and instructions to improve the abstract idea of transmitting and issuing and re-issuing vaccination certification. Thus for the same reasons aforementioned the claims do not provide additional features which provide significantly more. Also, examiner notes without conceding that well understood routine and conventional was not alleged by examiner and was also not required based on 101 analysis given by examiner.
Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection.
Conclusion
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 Ashley Elizabeth Evans whose telephone number is (571) 270-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ASHLEY ELIZABETH EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
