DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 06/18/2024, the Amendment & Remark filed on 06/22/2026 and the Request for Continued Examination filed on 06/22/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 3, 5, 6, 13 and 17-18 are canceled.
Claims 23-28 are added.
Claims 1, 4, 10 and 15 are amended.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 15, 16 and 19-28 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, 2, 4, 7-11, 15, 16 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to processes and an apparatus, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, user input indicating a first identifier of an individual associated with a policy;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a second identifier of a transfer source associated with the policy;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a third identifier of a transfer destination associated with the policy;
generating, by the one or more processors, programming code for a smart contract associated with the policy, the programming code comprising computer-executable instructions that defines:
an execution condition comprising identification of a notice from a death record repository that indicates the first identifier of the individual, and
a tracker that executes to query the death record repository for the notice that indicates the first identifier, and
an operation to be performed in response to an occurrence of the execution condition, the operation comprising causing a transfer from the transfer source indicated by the second identifier to the transfer destination indicated by the third identifier and
adding, by the one or more processors, a block associated with the smart contract to a blockchain implemented via a plurality of decentralized nodes,
wherein adding the block to the blockchain comprises configuring the smart contract to automatically execute, in the blockchain based on the computer-executable instructions, to cause: the tracker to query the death record repository for the notice and the transfer in response to the identification, by the tracker, of the notice from the death record repository, and prevents, based on block hashes of blocks in the blockchain, modification of the smart contract.
Claims 2, 11 and 16 recites:
wherein: the death record repository is a Social Security Death Index (SSDI), and the first identifier is a Social Security Number (SSN).
Claim 4 recites:
wherein: a hashed version of the first identifier is stored, in the block, in the computer-executable instructions of the smart contract, and the tracker is configured to use the hashed version of the first identifier to determine that the notice is associated with the first identifier.
Claims 7 and 19 recites:
wherein: instances of the policy are available to individuals who are at least a threshold age, by: providing based on the SSN to an outside database; and receiving a response, from the outside database, that confirms that the individual associated with the SSN is at least the threshold age without indicating an exact age or a birthdate of the individual.
Claims 8 and 20 recite:
wherein: the transfer source and the transfer destination are cryptocurrency wallets, and the transfer is executed between the cryptocurrency wallets via the blockchain.
Claim 9 recites:
wherein access to the transfer destination is managed by a beneficiary manager element of a policy management system.
Claim 10 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
scanning, by a tracker executing in a blockchain via one or more processors of one or more decentralized nodes of the blockchains, a death record repository, wherein the tracker is defined in programming code of a smart contract, associated with a policy that is stored in the blockchain;
identifying, by the tracker, and based on the scanning, a notice indicating an identifier of an individual;
determining, by the tracker, that the identifier indicated by the notice corresponds with an execution condition associated with the policy, defined in computer-executable instruction of the programming code of the smart contract,
wherein: the execution condition comprises identification of the notice, the smart contract defines an operation to be performed in response to an occurrence of the execution condition, and the operation comprises a cryptocurrency transfer from a source cryptocurrency wallet identified by the smart contract to a destination cryptocurrency wallet identified by the smart contract; and
initiating, by the tracker, and based on identification of the notice, automatic performance of the operation by the smart contract executing in the blockchain.
Claim 15 recites:
A computing system, comprising: one or more processors, and memory storing first computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive user input indicating a first identifier of an individual associated with a policy;
identify a second identifier of a transfer source associated with the policy;
identify a third identifier of a transfer destination associated with the policy;
generate programming code for a smart contract associated with the policy, the programming code comprising second computer-executable instructions that define:
an execution condition comprising identification of a notice from a death record repository that indicates the first identifier of the individual,
a tracker that executes to query the death record repository for the notice that indicates the first identifier,
an operation to be performed in response to an occurrence of the execution condition, the operation comprising causing a transfer from the transfer source indicated by the second identifier to the transfer destination indicated by the third identifier; and
add a block associated with the smart contract to a blockchain implemented via a plurality of decentralized nodes,
wherein adding the block to the blockchain comprises configuring the programming code of the smart contract to automatically execute, in the blockchain the second computer-executable instructions to cause: the tracker to query the death record repository for the notice and the transfer in response to the identification, by the tracker, of the notice from the death record repository, and prevents, based on block hashes of blocks in the blockchain, modification of the smart contract.
Claim 21 recites:
wherein the blockchain comprises an Ethereum blockchain configured to automatically execute smart contracts to perform corresponding cryptocurrency transfers between cryptocurrency wallets.
Claim 22 recites:
wherein: the policy is beneficiary-agnostic, the transfer destination comprises a particular cryptocurrency wallet, and a party having access to a cryptographic key associated with the particular cryptocurrency wallet may, following the transfer, use the cryptographic key to access funds transferred by the smart contract from the transfer source to the particular cryptocurrency wallet
Claim 23 recites:
wherein generating the programming code for the smart contract comprises automatically generating the programming code based on templates of pre-written source code that are filled in based on values provided in the user input.
Claim 24 recites:
wherein generating the programming code for the smart contract comprises automatically generating the programming code based on a script or a generative system.
Claim 25 recites:
wherein: a hashed version of the identifier of the individual is stored in the computer-executable instructions of the smart contract, and the tracker is configured to use the hashed version of the identifier to determine that the notice corresponds with the execution condition.
Claim 26 recites:
wherein the automatic performance of the operation causes the cryptocurrency transfer to occur substantially immediately via the blockchain in response to the identification of the notice.
Claim 27 recites:
wherein scanning the death record repository comprises scanning the death record repository for death records added to the death record repository since a previous scan of the death record repository by the tracker.
Claim 28 recites:
wherein the smart contract is static and unmodifiable in the blockchain, based on block hashes of blocks in the blockchain.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers administrating life insurance. Administrating life insurance is considered to be a fundamental economic practice, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “processer” and “computer” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “receiving, by one or more processors, user input indicating a first identifier of an individual associated with a policy” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving user inputting indicating a first identifier of the individual associated with a policy;
the limitation “identifying, by the one or more processors, a second identifier of a transfer source associated with the policy” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of identifying the transfer source;
the limitation “identifying, by the one or more processors, a third identifier of a transfer destination associated with the policy” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of identifying the transfer destination;
the limitation “generating, by the one or more processors, programming code for a smart contract associated with the policy, the programming code comprising computer-executable instructions that defines: an execution condition comprising identification of a notice from a death record repository that indicates the first identifier of the individual, and a tracker that executes to query the death record repository for the notice that indicates the first identifier, and an operation to be performed in response to an occurrence of the execution condition, the operation comprising causing a transfer from the transfer source indicated by the second identifier to the transfer destination indicated by the third identifier” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of generate the smart contract to automatically query death record repository to track a notice from the death record repository not transfer value in response to a notice from a death record repository;
the limitation “adding, by the one or more processors, a block associated with the smart contract to a blockchain implemented via a plurality of decentralized nodes, wherein adding the block to the blockchain comprises configuring the smart contract to automatically execute, in the blockchain based on the computer-executable instructions, to cause the transfer in response to the identification of the notice from the death record repository, and prevents, based on block hashes of blocks in the blockchain, modification of the smart contract” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of recording or posting the smart contract to a blockchain for processing;
the limitation “wherein: a hashed version of the first identifier is stored, in the block, in the computer-executable instructions of the smart contract, and the death notice tracker is configured to use the hashed version of the first identifier to determine that the notice is associated with the first identifier” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of using encrypted version of the first identifier to determine that the notice is associated with the first identifier;
the limitation “wherein: instances of the policy are available to individuals who are at least a threshold age, by: providing based on the SSN to an outside database; and receiving a response, from the outside database, that confirms that the individual associated with the SSN is at least the threshold age without indicating an exact age or a birthdate of the individual” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of verifying that the individual is at least the threshold age based on the SSN with an outside entity;
the limitation “wherein: the transfer source and the transfer destination are cryptocurrency wallets, and the transfer is executed between the cryptocurrency wallets via the blockchain” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of transferring fund between wallet;
the limitation “scanning, by a tracker executing in a blockchain via one or more processors of one or more decentralized nodes of the blockchains, a death record repository, wherein the tracker is defined in programming code of a smart contract, associated with a policy that is stored in the blockchain” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of scanning a death record repository;
the limitation “identifying, by the tracker, and based on the scanning, a notice indicating an identifier of an individual” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of identifying a notice indicating an identifier of an individual based on the scanning;
the limitation “determining, by the tracker, that the identifier indicated by the notice corresponds with an execution condition associated with the policy, defined in computer-executable instruction of the programming code of the smart contract, wherein: the execution condition comprises identification of the notice, the smart contract defines an operation to be performed in response to an occurrence of the execution condition, and the operation comprises a cryptocurrency transfer from a source cryptocurrency wallet identified by the smart contract to a destination cryptocurrency wallet identified by the smart contract” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining an identifier correspond with an execution condition of a contract associated with a policy;
the limitation “initiating, by the one or more processors, in response to the notice, automatic performance of the operation by the smart contract executing in the blockchain” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of performing the operation conditioned in the contract;
the limitation “wherein the blockchain comprises an Ethereum blockchain configured to automatically execute smart contracts to perform corresponding cryptocurrency transfers between cryptocurrency wallets” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of performing the operation conditioned in the contract using an Ethereum blockchain;
the limitation “wherein: the policy is beneficiary-agnostic, the transfer destination comprises a particular cryptocurrency wallet, and a party having access to a cryptographic key associated with the particular cryptocurrency wallet may, following the transfer, use the cryptographic key to access funds transferred by the smart contract from the transfer source to the particular cryptocurrency wallet” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of using a cryptographic key to access funds transferred by the smart contract.
the limitation “wherein generating the programming code for the smart contract comprises automatically generating the programming code based on templates of pre-written source code that are filled in based on values provided in the user input” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of using templates of pre-written source code to generate the programming code for the smart contract.
the limitation “wherein generating the programming code for the smart contract comprises automatically generating the programming code based on a script or a generative system” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of using a script or a generative system to generate the programming code for the smart contract.
the limitation “wherein: a hashed version of the identifier of the individual is stored in the computer-executable instructions of the smart contract, and the tracker is configured to use the hashed version of the identifier to determine that the notice corresponds with the execution condition” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of storing a hashed (encrypted) version of the identifier of the individual in the smart contract and using the hashed identifier to determine the notice corresponds with the execution condition of the contract.
the limitation “wherein the automatic performance of the operation causes the cryptocurrency transfer to occur substantially immediately via the blockchain in response to the identification of the notice” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of substantially immediately transfer cryptocurrency in response to the identification of the notice.
the limitation “wherein scanning the death record repository comprises scanning the death record repository for death records added to the death record repository since a previous scan of the death record repository by the tracker” encompasses no more than generically invoking a generic processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of scanning the death record repository for records added since a previous scan.
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “blockchain” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “generating .. programming code for a smart contract” and “tracker is defined in programming code of a smart contract” are generically recited to generate the terms of the contract used in the Judicial Exception described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the generating is accomplished.
The additional element(s) of “adding … a block … to the blockchain” are generically recited to store data of the Judicial Exception such as contractual term automatically transfer from a source to a destination.
The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “a blockchain implemented via a plurality of decentralized nodes” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the smart contract is static and unmodifiable in the blockchain, based on block hashes of blocks in the blockchain” is a generic description of a smart contract in a blockchain, but does not provide any inventive concept integrating the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “tracker”, “by a tracker executing in a blockchain”, “” and “the smart contract to automatically execute, in the blockchain based on the computer-executable instructions”, “blockchain comprises an Ethereum blockchain configured to automatically execute smart contracts” are generically recited to perform tracking and transferring steps described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the smart contract accomplish it.
The additional element(s) of “generative system” are generically recited to perform code generating steps described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the generative system accomplish it.
The additional element(s) of “blockchain … prevents, based on block hashes of blocks in the blockchain, modification of the smart contract” are inherent property of blockchain – immutability. The preventing modification step is also described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the blockchain accomplish it, suggesting it is not an inventive concept provided by the current invention.
The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “automatically”, “automatic” and “computer-executable” are appended to abstract elements such as “execute … a transfer”, “executing of …policy instruction” and “policy instruction”, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
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 element of using a processor and blockchain to administer life insurance amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Dependent claim 2, 8, 9, 11, 16 and 20 merely limit the abstract idea but do not recite any additional element beyond the cited abstract idea, thus, do not amount to significantly more. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 15, 16 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims integrate the Judicial Exception practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant contended that the claimed invention “technical improvements over conventional life insurance systems that would require submission of an insurance claim and subsequent processing of the insurance claim that would consume bandwidth resources, processing cycles, memory, and/or other computing resources” and “the described system involving a smart contract on a blockchain results in technical improvements that reduce usage of computing resources associated with processing of insurance claims, because the described smart contract automatically executes in the blockchain without submission and processing of an insurance claim”. However, the examiner maintained that the computing resources associated with the submission and processing of an insurance claim is just nominally reduced, without explanation, via the use of smart contract. The examiner noted that the claims include “generating programming code for a smart contract” but found that the generating of the such programming code is nominally recited in a result-only manner devoid of technological detail of the generation of such code. The applicant did not claim to have invented and did not disclose the technology of smart contract. It should be noted that the mere applying Judicial Exception of administrating insurance to an existing technology of smart contract would at best improve the Judicial Exception, not to the technology used. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
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, MICHAEL W 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights