DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 4/15/2026. Claims 18-34 are pending. Claims 1-17 have been cancelled. Claims 18-34 are new.
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 .
Interview
On 6/17/2026, Examiner contacted attorney for applicant Richard Finkelstein (Reg. No. 56,534) at (860)368-0040 to propose Examiner's Amendment to correct outstanding issues with the specification and 112 & 101 issues with the claims. Attorney indicated that it would be better for the issues to be presented in writing in order to present to the applicant. Due to time constraints, Examiner asked if it would be better that they send out the Final Action with all the issues indicated. Attorney agreed that doing so would be acceptable.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 4/15/2026: Applicant has amended the specification and the drawing objections are withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims, and the corresponding rejections have been altered to address the amended language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with regards to the 112(b) rejection as it would apply to new claim 18:
“With respect to the relationship between the tokenized data and the first transaction, independent claim 18 recites: "sharing first case data associated with the first case ... wherein the first case data comprises ... the tokenized data corresponding to the first transaction." In the context of claim 18, the "first case" is generated "corresponding to a first transaction". The "first case data" is defined as data associated with this first case, as described in paragraphs [0023]- [0025]. The tokenized data therefore forms part of the data structure representing the first transaction via the first case. This establishes a direct structural linkage between the tokenized data and the first transaction, thereby addressing the Examiner's objection. With respect to the deciphering limitation, claim 18 recites: "deciphering tokenized data comprised in the first case data using the first cryptographic key to obtain deciphered first case data". When read in light of the specification in paragraph [0028], this feature defines the deciphering operation applied to the tokenized sensitive data contained within the first case data. The claim further defines the inputs and output of the operation (i.e. "tokenized data comprised in the first case data; "deciphered first case data"), thereby removing any potential ambiguity as to what is processed. In particular, the claim now restricts, for clarity, the deciphering operation to tokenized data comprised within the first case data, consistent with paragraph [0028] of the specification. With respect to the comparison limitation, claim 18 recites: "comparing the deciphered first case data with second case data corresponding to a second transaction to determine whether the deciphered first case data differs from the second case data". This language defines the data being compared, namely the deciphered first case data and the second case data corresponding to a second transaction, as well as the comparison condition, namely whether the data differs - as described in paragraph [0030]. This same recitation structure is repeated for the third node with respect to third case data. As such, the claims clearly define what data is being compared and the purpose of the comparison.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In claim 18 only data tokenized is the “sensitive data”, and at no point in the claim is the “sensitive data” related/corresponded to the “first transaction” or “first case”. Applicant argues that by including the “tokenized data” in the “first case data” it “establishes a direct structural linkage between the tokenized data and the first transaction”. Examiner does not refute this argument, however, the language of the claim has “the first data comprises: a case identifier associated with the first transaction, the first cryptographic key, and the tokenized data corresponding to the first transaction” which indicates that the there is a “correspondence” between the “tokenized data” and the “first transaction” other than it being structurally included in “the first data”. For example, the claim could merely recite “the first data comprises: a case identifier associated with the first transaction, the first cryptographic key, and the tokenized data
Applicant argues with regards to the 101 rejection as it would apply to claims 27-34, that “is based on the interpretation that the previously pending system claim did not recite sufficient structural limitations”, then pointing to the specification for support for an interpretation of the claims to show support. The issue is that the Examiner is required to interpret the claims under broadest reasonable interpretation and that while there is support for embodiments in the specification that include hardware, there is nothing in the claim language limiting the scope of the invention to an embodiment that is not solely software. The only components present in the claims are “nodes” and a “data processing arrangement”. These claimed elements can be broadly interpreted as software in the scope of the claims. While these elements have support in the specification for hardware elements, this is not present in the claim language and does not limit the scope of the claim to an interpretation that excludes a software only interpretation. Another way to look at this is that while the “nodes” and a “data processing arrangement” may need hardware to execute/operate, since no hardware is explicitly claimed, it is not being interpreted as within the scope of the claim, and as such the invention can be interpreted to only require the functionality/software portions of the “nodes” and a “data processing arrangement”.
All other arguments presented by Applicant either repeat or rely upon the issues addressed above, and are also not persuasive for the reasons given above.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first recitation of the following acronyms is not expanded: [0024] ISO; and [0052] BIC; [0005] “trace [[a]] potentially fraudulent activities” for grammar; and [0029] “not tempered with” should be “not tampered with” for grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities, shown with suggested amendments: Claim 18 l. 27 “obtain the deciphered first case data” for proper antecedent basis; Claim 18 ll. 32-33 “the first node, the second node, the third node, or the one or more subsequent nodes” for proper antecedent basis and grammar; Claim 27 l. 28 “obtain the deciphered first case data” for proper antecedent basis; Claim 27 ll. 33-34 “the first node, the second node, the third node, or the one or more subsequent nodes” for proper antecedent basis and grammar; Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 l. 13 recites the limitation “the tokenized data corresponding to the first transaction” which is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how “the tokenized data” corresponds to “the first transaction”. Claim 18 l. 5 has the “first transaction” corresponding to a “first case”, and Claim 18 l. 8 has the “tokenizing the sensitive data based on the first cryptographic key” and Claim 18 l. 4 has the “sensitive data” belonging to a “user”. The “tokenized data” is presumed to be the “sensitive data” that has been tokenized, however there is no indication of how the “user”/“sensitive data” and the “first transaction”/”first case” “correspond” to each other. For purposes of applying prior art it is presumed that the “sensitive data” that is “tokenized” is “sensitive data” of the “user” for which the “first transaction” is performed.
Claim 18 ll. 17-18 and 26-27 recite the limitation “deciphering the tokenized data comprised in the first case data using the first cryptographic key to obtain deciphered first case data” which is vague and indefinite as in Claim 18 the only thing tokenized is “sensitive data” that has no clear relationship with the “first case” or the “first transaction”. For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “deciphering the tokenized data comprised in the first case data using the first cryptographic key to obtain deciphered sensitive data of the first case data”.
Claim 27 l. 14 recites the limitation “tokenized data corresponding to the first transaction” which is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the “tokenized data” corresponds to “the first transaction”. Claim 27 l. 6 has the “first transaction” corresponding to a “first case”, and Claim 27 l. 9 has the “tokenizing the sensitive data based on the first cryptographic key” and Claim 27 l. 4 has the “sensitive data” belonging to a “user”. The “tokenized data” is presumed to be the “sensitive data” that has been tokenized, however there is no indication of how the “user”/“sensitive data” and the “first transaction”/”first case” “correspond” to each other. For purposes of applying prior art it is presumed that the “sensitive data” that is “tokenized” is “sensitive data” of the “user” for which the “first transaction” is performed.
Claim 27 ll. 18-19 and 27-28 recite the limitation “deciphering the tokenized data comprised in the first case data using the first cryptographic key to obtain deciphered first case data” which is vague and indefinite as in Claim 18 the only thing tokenized is “sensitive data” that has no clear relationship with the “first case” or the “first transaction”. For purposes of applying prior art the limitation has been construed as “deciphering the tokenized data comprised in the first case data using the first cryptographic key to obtain deciphered sensitive data of the first case data”.
Claims 19-26 and 28-34 incorporate the deficiencies of claims 18 and 27, respectively, through dependency, and are therefore also rejected.
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 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 27, the claimed invention is drawn to a “system” comprising a “plurality of nodes” and a “data processing arrangement”. Which can be broadly interpreted as various types of software (software modules, virtualized hardware, data, programming code, etc.). Thus, it is not clear whether the claimed elements of the “system” are tangibly-embodied structural features, or software, per se. As such the invention does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C § 101 (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Examiner recommends including some form of a “hardware processor” (e.g. hardware processor, microprocessor, microcontroller, etc.) or “memory” (i.e. medium, RAM, ROM, etc.) as a claimed element of the “system” or “nodes” as neither a “hardware processor” or “memory” can be broadly interpreted as software.
Claims 28-34 further fail to recite any positive structural limitations to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 issues of claim 10 discussed above, and are also rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and any claim objections, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 27-34 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and any claim objections, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 18 and 27, and their dependent claims, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest, in combination, a method or system for detecting, tracking and tracing potential fraud in a computer network having a plurality of nodes in which a first node generates and subscribes to a first case for a first transaction tokenizes user sensitive data by using a generated encryption key, shares first case data with other nodes that includes a case identifier, the key and the tokenized data corresponding to the first transaction, at subsequent nodes receiving the shared first case data, subscribing and deciphering the tokenized data to compare the first case data with other cases and notifying other nodes when different, in the specific manner and combination as recited in claims 18 and 27.
Conclusion
No new prior art is made of record.
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 ERIC W SHEPPERD whose telephone number is (571)270-5654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, Alt. Friday, 7:30AM - 5:00PM, EST.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571)272-3880. 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.
/ERIC W SHEPPERD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
ERIC W. SHEPPERD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights