CTFR 18/891,179 CTFR 91529 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on February 2, 2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. No information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026, page 8, regarding objection to drawings have been fully considered. Objection is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. However, Examiner proposes that the claim language be amended to remove intended use language and focus on positively recited language. For example, transmitting information about the completed procedure to be stored in a secure, distributed ledger should instead read transmitting information including the completed procedure to a distributed ledger for secure storage. The term “for” still captured intended use language but since the distributed ledger is outside the claimed scope the proposed amendment simplifies and clarifies the limitation. Applicant's arguments, pages 9-11, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Applicant points to and highlights the encryption of electronic records, transmission of the completed procedure to a user device via a distributed communication network and a firewall, and the use of a cryptographic key derivation algorithm. Applicant also argues the amended encrypted database records and security feature component along with the shifting of complex processing from remote devices to a procedure processing framework. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), are directed to a procedure address data store (PADS) and a procedure processing framework (PPF), wherein the PPF is recited as carrying out functions of verifying, receiving, predicting, completing, and transmitting data while the PADS stores encrypted records. The last limitation, raises new issues including 35 U.S.C 112(a), see below. Based on the issues and applying BRI, the claims are directed to simply storing data, verifying data, receiving data, predicting (regardless of it being done automatically) a procedure based on high-level elements, completing the procedure and sending data to different entities. the PADS is only recited as storing data but is never used in the claims by PPF (i.e. PPF never communication with PADS). Even if the two entities, PADS and PPF did communicate, such a communication does not aid in making the claims more patent eligible. Under Step-2A, Prong I, the abstract idea is deemed to fall under mental processes. The steps carried out in the claims by PPF can clearly be carried out by a human mind using pen-and-paper. Under Step-2A, Prong II, the additional elements in the claims, including the ones argued by the Applicant, fail to amount to a practical application. Encrypted records are high level and fail to capture a technical solution on encrypting said records in a way that results in an improvement to a technical field or device or technology. Sending data over a network and using a firewall is again high level and lacks any technical elements that would capture a technical solution. The claims do not capture Applicant’s arguments directed to the “shifting [of] complex processing” because the claims are directed to a single entity, PPF, that carried out the claimed functions without any limitation being directed to the shifting processes based on a determination of a need to shift processes to a PPF. The claims are directed to a PPF and do not include a user device or user devices and how the user devices can carry out any action or actions; id., 11. It seems that the claims need to recite two entities and how these entities are able to function as a system to perhaps capture any alleged security improvement. At the moment, the claims are directed to nothing more than a single entity that manipulates data and outputs a result, which can be carried out in a human mind. All additional elements simply automate the abstract idea and are used to apply the abstract idea. Regarding Applicant’s arguments to the sited case law, Examiner notes that the basis of the rejection was not the argued case law; therefore, the arguments are moot. Improvement of security must be captured by the claims in a way that allows for any alleged abstract idea to be deemed eligible when considering all additional elements as amounting to a practical application. Here, we don’t have additional elements that would amount to a practical application. Examiner again proposes including other entities into the claims, for instance, user devices and reciting what these devices do, from a technical perspective, in conjunction with PADS and PPF to try and capture Applicant’s claimed solution to secure data processing. The claims fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step-2B. The dependent claims fail to include any additional elements that would amount to a practical application. The rejection is maintained. Applicant's arguments, pages 11-13, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims contain newly raised issues, yet, the claimed scope as a whole is not deemed obvious based on the latest search. As a result, the claims are novel over the prior art as a novel combination of references to teach all claimed scope as a whole is not deemed appropriate at this time. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “transmitting information about the completed procedure to a remote user device via a distributed communication network and a firewall.” The Specification fails to define “a distributed communication network” and merely recites it in one sentence only. Likewise the Specification fails to disclose “a distributed communication network and a firewall” used together to send data. A distributed communication network is one in which multiple devices/nodes connect over a network and work together to share resources, process tasks, and communicate with one another to achieve a common goal. The Specification is devoid of such a communication network not alone the use of both the distributed communication network and a firewall to send data. As a result, the claim and all dependent claims are rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of transmitting information of a procedure to an entity based on manipulation of data without significantly more. The abstract idea is categorized under mental processes, including concept that can be carried out by a human mind and with use of a pen and a paper. Such concepts include observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Storing data can be done on a paper or in a human mind. Stored data, on paper, can also be done in an encrypted manner. Likewise, a human can verify data using equations, information including address invoice, and a key or code algorithm (equation). A human can receive data including procedure information from another entity and determine automatically a location or address, complete the procedure based on the predicted address/location and send data or information about the completed procedure to entities. Claim 8, in pertinent part, recites: A… method associated with procedure processing, comprising: accessing a procedure address data store containing encrypted electronic records, each record being associated with a procedure originator and including a pre-shared master address for that procedure originator; verifying… a pre-shared master address associated with a procedure originator, wherein the pre-shared master address is a root node of destination addresses in a hierarchical tree such that each child destination address of the hierarchical tree can be determined based on a parent destination address, an invoice number, and a cryptographic key derivation algorithm; receiving… a procedure record including an invoice number; automatically predicting… a destination address based on the pre-shared master address associated with the procedure originator, the hierarchical tree, the invoice number, and the cryptographic key derivation algorithm; completing the procedure with the procedure originator via the predicted destination address; transmitting information about the completed procedure to be stored in a secure, distributed ledger, and transmitting information about the completed procedure to a remote user device via a distributed communication network and a firewall. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: A computer-implemented method, a distributed communication network at a computer processor of a procedure processing framework by a procedure responder, a secure distributed ledger, a computer processor, and a computer memory storing instructions, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions, and a computing system. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as accessing/receiving data, validating data, receiving data, analyzing the data to provide a prediction, and outputting a response before sending the response output data to entities. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do 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 amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims recite use of various algorithms, digital currency, and elaborate of a distributed ledger as comprising type of network. However, these elements are not deemed additional elements because they are broad and generic and fail to capture technically how they are utilized in order to amount to additional elements that would be deemed as amounting to a practical application. These elements are just describing the abstract idea, and are simply being used to apply the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims further describe the abstract idea and fail to include any additional elements that would deem the claims patent eligible. They fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The claims are not patent eligible. Additional References PGPUB 2020/0286047 to Joveski et al. teaches most of Applicant’s claimed scope. See Paragraphs 0057-0060 and Figures 6-7 and related text. PGPUB 2022/0327525 to Tsitrin et al. teaches Address Verification, Seed Splitting and Firmware Extension for Secure Cryptocurrency Key Backup, Restore, and Transaction Signing Platform Apparatuses, Methods and Systems (“SFTSP”) transforms contract deployment request, transaction signing request, key backup request, key recovery request inputs via SFTSP components into contract deployment response, transaction signing response, key backup response, key recovery response outputs. A transaction signing request message datastructure associated with a transaction is obtained. Owner key identification parameters associated with an owner datastructure associated with a verified address wallet datastructure are determined. A contract address for the verified address wallet datastructure is calculated as a function of a deployment factory address, a salt value for the smart contract, contract code for the smart contract, and an owner address generated using the owner key identification parameters. A contract deployment signature is validated. A transaction hash for the transaction is calculated and a transaction signature is generated and returned. See also body of the publication which discloses various elements of what the Applicant deems as their invention. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892 . THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM. 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, Neha W. Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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. Sincerely, /EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 2 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 3 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 4 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 5 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 6 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 7 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 8 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 9 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 10 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 11 Art Unit: 3699 Application/Control Number: 18/891,179 Page 12 Art Unit: 3699
Prosecution Insights