DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 19 February 2025.
Claims 1-14 were canceled and claims 15-28 were added in a preliminary amendment filed on 19 February 2025.
Claim(s) 15-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
This application is a 371 filing of PCT JP2023/030231 filed on 23 August 2023. This application further claims priority of JP Application No. 2022-132625 filed on 23 August 2022. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of these prior filed applications is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 19 February 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15, 22, and 27 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites An information processing method for distribution medical data which should recite An information processing method for distribution of medical data.
Claim 22 recites wherein Even when not the owner which should recite wherein even when not the owner
Claim 27 recites The information processing system for distribution medical data which should recite An [The] information processing system for distribution of medical data.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 15-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Claim 1 recites minting, by a smart contract of a blockchain system, a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) including an address for accessing the stored medical data for a blockchain account of the patient in the blockchain system, within a predetermined number of times of minting. It is unclear how within a predetermined number of times of minting modifies the scope of the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to resolve how the number of times modifies the scope of the claim, rendering the claim scope unclear and the claim indefinite. Claims 27 and 28 are similarly rejected.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as effecting saying that the minting occurs a predetermined number of times.
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.
Claim(s) 15-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15, which is representative of claims 27 and 28, recites an information processing method for distribution medical data, comprising:
accepting,
accepting,
transmitting the medical data for which the agreement and the verification can be accepted to
storing,
minting,
accepting, [token]
allowing, [token] [token]
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of collecting medical information and managing access to medical information. This concept describes a mental process that a recordkeeper should follow to management access to data based on ownership similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 15 and 27 recites the additional elements of a first device, a second device, and a third device which implement the steps of the abstract idea. Claim 28 recites the additional element of a non-transitory medium. These additional elements are all recited at an extremely high level of generality and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of transmitting data to the second device. This additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technology environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of the second device storing data. This additional element amounts to instruments to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which involve a smart contract and a blockchain system. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to a computer or other technology, does not constitute a particular machine, does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article, and does not use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Instead, this additional element generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a non-fungible token network. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a non-fungible token network. Therefore the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract idea the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of transmitting data to the second device. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of the second device storing data. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), storing information in memory has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of the additional element of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which involve a smart contract and a blockchain system. Browne (Trading in NFTs spiked 21,000% to more than $17 billion in 2011, report says) demonstrates(“Trading in non-fungible tokens hit $17.6 billion last year” Page 1. Also: “NFTs entered mainstream consciousness in a big way, with celebrities and major companies increasing warming to the market” Page 1. “More than 2.5 million crypto wallets belonged to people holding or trading NFTs in 2021” Page 2) that NFTs its associated contracts and blockchains were conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a non-fungible token network. Therefore the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-26 further narrow the abstract idea set forth by the independent claims, but the dependent claims continue to describe a method of organizing human activity and thus recite an abstract idea. Dependent claims 16-26 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons provided above. As such, dependent claims 16-26 are also directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons provided above. Thus as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Warnick et al. (US 12260440 B1).
Regarding Claim 28: Warnick discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that cases a computer which is a node in a blockchain system, as a smart contract, to execute processing of:
the smart contract being called when an addition request for storing medical data relevant to a medical examination of a patient in a storage is broadcast (a smart contract refers to computer programming code executed by a distributed ledger system. For instance, smart contracts may refer to distributed programs, or distributed applications that can be used to perform the transactions and recordation in the blockchain infrastructure. See at least Column 25, Lines 24-29. Also: the blockchain 120 may be a public or private ledger of all transactions that have been executed in one or more contexts (e.g., negotiable instrument transactions, digital currency transactions, access determinations, instances of providing access, reviews, etc.). The blockchain 120 may grow as completed blocks are added with a new set of transactions by the NFT management system 104. See at least Column 7, Lines 45-52);
minting a plurality of NFTs including an address for accessing the medical data on the storage including a measurement result by a measurement device measuring vitals of the patient, identification data of the measurement device, and reliability data indicating a degree of reliability of the measurement result to a blockchain account of the patient, within a predetermined number of times of minting (an NFT management system can track incoming digital health data, perform one or more analysis operations using the digital health data, and automatically mint one or more NFTs based on the digital health data, which may include the results of the analysis operations. See at least Column 3, Lines 40-45. Also: smart contracts may refer to distributed programs, or distributed applications that can be used to perform the transactions and recordation in the blockchain infrastructure. See at least Column 25, Lines 26-29. Also: NFT associated content 160 can be stored in an off-chain storage 162. The location of the off-chain storage 162 at the time the NFT 116 was minted can be specifically referred to in the NFT record 150. For example, the NFT record 150 can include a URL link to the NFT associated content 160. See at least Column 9, Lines 48-53. Also: The third party application 504 may ask the user 102 to input biometric data including height, weight, fitness goals, or the like. See at least Column 14, Lines 61-63. Also: as illustrated in FIG. 9, the NFT management system 104 may receive digital health data from a health institution, such as a doctor's office, a laboratory, a clinic, a hospital, or the like. For example, a user 102 may be due for their regular check-up at a doctor's office and undergo a medical exam 904 for life insurance or health insurance purposes. As such, the doctor may record the necessary health data and store it in their network as digital health data of the user 102. In some embodiments, the user 102 may fill out an application requesting health data or answering a questionnaire regarding their current health status. The application may be entered into the NFT management system 104 and received by the analysis engine for analysis. See at least Column 19, Line 57 through Column 20 Line 3);
accepting a purchase of the NFT from a third device of another person (The method may also involve accepting an offer from a purchaser for the non-fungible token via the marketplace. See at least Column 2, Lines 1-3. Also: smart contracts may refer to distributed programs, or distributed applications that can be used to perform the transactions and recordation in the blockchain infrastructure. … smart contracts may be utilized in the exchange of information regarding users. As another example, smart contracts may be utilized in conjunction with financial transactions, such as payments or loans. See at least Column 25, Lines 16-38. Also: the user may the NFT 116 containing their digital health data on the marketplace 704 for bidding. The user 102 may set the minimum bidding price for the NFT 116 and signal to the NFT management system 104 to sell the NFT 116 when the offer price may be higher than the minimum bidding price. In another embodiment, the user 102 may require the purchaser to meet certain criteria before allowing the NFT management system 104 to release the NFT 116 for sale. See at least Column 18, Lines 15-23); and
allowing an access to the medical data from a device of an NFT owner (The method may also involve accepting an offer from a purchaser for the non-fungible token via the marketplace and providing unobscured digital health data or an encryption key to the purchaser of the non-fungible token. See at least Column 2, Lines 1-5. Also: the smart contract(s) executing on a distributed ledger may make access authorization decisions based on permission information stored on the distributed ledger. See at least Colum 25, Lines 11-13. Also: The request may include a reference to the NFT record 150, which can be accessed via a distributed ledger 156 (block 302). The received request may trigger an owner authentication step (block 304) which may require 1) the identity of the requestor to be verified and 2) the requestor to be the owner of the NFT 116 based on the NFT record 150. See at least Column 10, Lines 61-67. Also: The method 300 may include a step of accessing, or attempting to access, NFT associated content 160 (block 306). The NFT associated content 160 may include digital health data of the user 102 located outside of the distributed ledger 156. The digital health data of the user 102 may include medical charts, fitness data, medical evaluations, aggregated data, anonymized data, medical records, or the like. See at least Column 11, Lines 1-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-17, 20, and 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 12260440 B1) in view of Sarel et al. (US 2010/0114593 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Warnick discloses an information processing method for distribution medical data, comprising:
accepting, by a first device of a patient, agreement operation on providing of medical data relevant to a medical examination of the patient to a storage opened by any device (the third party application 504 may provide the digital health data of the user 102 to the NFT management system 104 for NFT generation. For example, the user 102 may indicate to the third party application 504 to take the stored digital health data and transmit it to NFT management system 104 for NFT creation or minting. See at least Column 15, Lines 22-28. Also: the health institution may ask the user 102 if the health data may be anonymized and pooled for machine learning purposes. See at least Column 20, Lines 20-24).
transmitting the medical data for which the agreement and the verification can be accepted to a second device that is used in a medical institute of a diagnosis destination of the patient, with a measurement result by a measurement device measuring vitals of the patient, identification data of the measurement device, and reliability data indicating a degree of reliability of the measurement result (The third party application 504 may ask the user 102 to input biometric data including height, weight, fitness goals, or the like. See at least Column 14, Lines 61-63. Also: as illustrated in FIG. 9, the NFT management system 104 may receive digital health data from a health institution, such as a doctor's office, a laboratory, a clinic, a hospital, or the like. For example, a user 102 may be due for their regular check-up at a doctor's office and undergo a medical exam 904 for life insurance or health insurance purposes. As such, the doctor may record the necessary health data and store it in their network as digital health data of the user 102. In some embodiments, the user 102 may fill out an application requesting health data or answering a questionnaire regarding their current health status. The application may be entered into the NFT management system 104 and received by the analysis engine for analysis. See at least Column 19, Line 57 through Column 20 Line 3. Also: That is, the doctor's visit may result generating an NFT 116 with the digital health data collected at the doctor's office. In some embodiments, the health institution may generate the NFT 116 on behalf of the user 102 and charge the user a small amount for minting. See at least Column 20, Lines 15-20 and Fig. 9. Examiner’s note: Questionnaire medical data includes a measurement result (the answers), identification data (indication that the data is questionnaire data), and reliability data (questionnaire data is associated with a degree of reliability).
storing, by the second device, the medical data for which the agreement and the verification can be accepted in the storage (The NFT management system 104 may store the NFT associated content 160 in the off-chain storage 162 referred to in the NFT record 150. See at least Column 17, Lines 11-13)
minting, by a smart contract of a blockchain system, a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) including an address for accessing the stored medical data for a blockchain account of the patient in the blockchain system, within a predetermined number of times of minting (an NFT management system can track incoming digital health data, perform one or more analysis operations using the digital health data, and automatically mint one or more NFTs based on the digital health data, which may include the results of the analysis operations. See at least Column 3, Lines 40-45. Also: smart contracts may refer to distributed programs, or distributed applications that can be used to perform the transactions and recordation in the blockchain infrastructure. See at least Column 25, Lines 26-29. Also: NFT associated content 160 can be stored in an off-chain storage 162. The location of the off-chain storage 162 at the time the NFT 116 was minted can be specifically referred to in the NFT record 150. For example, the NFT record 150 can include a URL link to the NFT associated content 160. See at least Column 9, Lines 48-53)
accepting, by the smart contract, a purchase of the NFT from a third device of another person (The method may also involve accepting an offer from a purchaser for the non-fungible token via the marketplace. See at least Column 2, Lines 1-3. Also: smart contracts may refer to distributed programs, or distributed applications that can be used to perform the transactions and recordation in the blockchain infrastructure. … smart contracts may be utilized in the exchange of information regarding users. As another example, smart contracts may be utilized in conjunction with financial transactions, such as payments or loans. See at least Column 25, Lines 16-38. Also: the user may the NFT 116 containing their digital health data on the marketplace 704 for bidding. The user 102 may set the minimum bidding price for the NFT 116 and signal to the NFT management system 104 to sell the NFT 116 when the offer price may be higher than the minimum bidding price. In another embodiment, the user 102 may require the purchaser to meet certain criteria before allowing the NFT management system 104 to release the NFT 116 for sale. See at least Column 18, Lines 15-23), and
allowing, by the smart contract, an access to the medical data from a device of an NFT owner of the NFT if the device if it is successfully authenticated as being the device of the NFT owner (The method may also involve accepting an offer from a purchaser for the non-fungible token via the marketplace and providing unobscured digital health data or an encryption key to the purchaser of the non-fungible token. See at least Column 2, Lines 1-5. Also: the smart contract(s) executing on a distributed ledger may make access authorization decisions based on permission information stored on the distributed ledger. See at least Colum 25, Lines 11-13. Also: The request may include a reference to the NFT record 150, which can be accessed via a distributed ledger 156 (block 302). The received request may trigger an owner authentication step (block 304) which may require 1) the identity of the requestor to be verified and 2) the requestor to be the owner of the NFT 116 based on the NFT record 150. See at least Column 10, Lines 61-67. Also: The method 300 may include a step of accessing, or attempting to access, NFT associated content 160 (block 306). The NFT associated content 160 may include digital health data of the user 102 located outside of the distributed ledger 156. The digital health data of the user 102 may include medical charts, fitness data, medical evaluations, aggregated data, anonymized data, medical records, or the like. See at least Column 11, Lines 1-8).
Warnick does not expressly disclose accepting, by the first device, verification data for authenticity of the medical data.
Sarel teaches accepting, by a first device, verification data for authenticity of the medical data (Reference is now made to FIG. 9 which presents an example of a screen-shot of the response confirmation screen, from a web-browser application questionnaire, according to another embodiment of the current invention. The list of responses made is presented in the pane, 91. By ticking the tick-box, 92, the applicant confirms the information. See at least [0098]).
Warnick provides a system which collects user medical information and creates a non-fungible token to control access to the medical information, upon which the claimed invention’s confirmation of medical information authenticity can be seen as an improvement. However, Sarel demonstrates that the prior art already knew of confirming medical information authenticity during medical information collection. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Sarel to the system of Warnick. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Sarel would have resulted in a system that would be more likely to receive accurate information from patients. As such, the application of Sarel and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Warnick and the teachings of Sarel.
Regarding Claim 16: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Warnick discloses wherein the storage in which the medical data is stored is a blockchain (storing the NFT associated content 160 in a distributed ledger format. See at least Column 9, Lines 45-46).
Regarding Claim 17: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Warnick discloses wherein the storage stores a plurality medical data (The NFT management system 104 may store the NFT associated content 160 in the off-chain storage 162 referred to in the NFT record 150. See at least Column 17, Lines 11-13), and the smart contract of the blockchain system accepts a transaction of a purchase of an NFT corresponding to each of the plurality medical data (The method may also involve accepting an offer from a purchaser for the non-fungible token via the marketplace. See at least Column 2, Lines 1-3. Also: smart contracts may refer to distributed programs, or distributed applications that can be used to perform the transactions and recordation in the blockchain infrastructure. … smart contracts may be utilized in the exchange of information regarding users. As another example, smart contracts may be utilized in conjunction with financial transactions, such as payments or loans. See at least Column 25, Lines 16-38. Also: the user may the NFT 116 containing their digital health data on the marketplace 704 for bidding. The user 102 may set the minimum bidding price for the NFT 116 and signal to the NFT management system 104 to sell the NFT 116 when the offer price may be higher than the minimum bidding price. In another embodiment, the user 102 may require the purchaser to meet certain criteria before allowing the NFT management system 104 to release the NFT 116 for sale. See at least Column 18, Lines 15-23).
Regarding Claim 20: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Warnick discloses wherein in accordance with a transfer of the purchased NFT from a patient of the NFT to a blockchain account of a purchaser of the NFT, the smart contract of the blockchain system gives a part or entirety of a purchase cost to the blockchain account of the patient (The NFT management system may include a portal to allow access to a marketplace, authentication data, insurance information, and insurance purchasing. In an embodiment, the portal of the NFT management system may include a marketplace for the user to sell their NFTs. For example, the user may own an NFT containing their digital health data from a health tracking device. The user may want to sell their NFT to an insurance company as proof of their healthy lifestyle and negotiate a lower insurance premium. As such, the user may access the portal to place their NFT on the marketplace for sale and accept an offer from the highest bidder for their NFT. The user may set up a split payment which may include a transaction fee for up to fifteen different parties. For example, when an original insurance provider generates the NFT on behalf of their user and the user elects to sell the NFT to another insurance provider, the original insurance provider may receive a royalty and/or may be credited for facilitating the sale. In another example, the original insurance provider may store the NFT on behalf of their user and request a transaction fee for storage. As such, transactions on the marketplace may include transaction fees (e.g., a percentage of the NFT cost) to be retained by the original insurance provider for facilitating the sale. See at least Column 4, Lines 29-5).
Regarding Claim 22: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Claim 22 recites wherein Even when not the owner of the NFT, the smart contract of the blockchain system accepts a transaction of burning the NFT from the blockchain account of the patient who is an original owner of the NFT. This limitation is interpreted as a contingent limitation of what happens when the patient who is an original owner of the NFT is not the owner of the NFT. Per MPEP 2111.04, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” As such, Warnick in view of Sarel continues to make obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 23: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Warnick discloses wherein in a case where the second device that is used in the medical institute receives the medical data for which the agreement and the verification can be accepted, the second device adds authorized data based on identification data of the medical institute (the doctor's visit may result generating an NFT 116 with the digital health data collected at the doctor's office. In some embodiments, the health institution may generate the NFT 116 on behalf of the user 102 and charge the user a small amount for minting. See at least Column 20, Lines 15-20 and Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 24: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Sarel teaches wherein the measurement device outputs the measurement result with the reliability data including generation trust data indicating that data obtained from the measurement device is less likely to be falsified at a time point when generated (Reference is now made to FIG. 9 which presents an example of a screen-shot of the response confirmation screen, from a web-browser application questionnaire, according to another embodiment of the current invention. The list of responses made is presented in the pane, 91. By ticking the tick-box, 92, the applicant confirms the information. See at least [0098]). The motivation to combine Warnick and Sarel is the same as explained under claim 15 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 25: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Sarel teaches wherein the first device transmits the medical data with the reliability data including authorization trust data that is a result of verifying that the medical data is own data of the patient (Reference is now made to FIG. 9 which presents an example of a screen-shot of the response confirmation screen, from a web-browser application questionnaire, according to another embodiment of the current invention. The list of responses made is presented in the pane, 91. By ticking the tick-box, 92, the applicant confirms the information. See at least [0098]). The motivation to combine Warnick and Sarel is the same as explained under claim 15 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 26: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Sarel teaches wherein the first device transmits the medical data with the reliability data including cognition trust data indicating whether the patient of the medical data has cognitive ability (Reference is now made to FIG. 9 which presents an example of a screen-shot of the response confirmation screen, from a web-browser application questionnaire, according to another embodiment of the current invention. The list of responses made is presented in the pane, 91. By ticking the tick-box, 92, the applicant confirms the information. See at least [0098]). The motivation to combine Warnick and Sarel is the same as explained under claim 15 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 27: Warnick discloses the information processing system for distribution medical data, comprising:
a first device of a patient; wherein the first device accepts agreement operation on providing of medical data relevant to a medical examination of the patient to a storage opened by any device (the third party application 504 may provide the digital health data of the user 102 to the NFT management system 104 for NFT generation. For example, the user 102 may indicate to the third party application 504 to take the stored digital health data and transmit it to NFT management system 104 for NFT creation or minting. See at least Column 15, Lines 22-28. Also: the health institution may ask the user 102 if the health data may be anonymized and pooled for machine learning purposes. See at least Column 20, Lines 20-24);
a second device that is used in a medical institute of a diagnosis destination of the patient; and the first device transmits the medical data for which the agreement and the verification can be accepted to a second device that is used in a medical institute of a diagnosis destination of the patient, with a measurement result by a measurement device measuring vitals of the patient, identification data of the measurement device, and reliability data indicating a degree of reliability of the measurement result (The third party application 504 may ask the user 102 to input biometric data including height, weight, fitness goals, or the like. See at least Column 14, Lines 61-63. Also: as illustrated in FIG. 9, the NFT management system 104 may receive digital health data from a health institution, such as a doctor's office, a laboratory, a clinic, a hospital, or the like. For example, a user 102 may be due for their regular check-up at a doctor's office and undergo a medical exam 904 for life insurance or health insurance purposes. As such, the doctor may record the necessary health data and store it in their network as digital health data of the user 102. In some embodiments, the user 102 may fill out an application requesting health data or answering a questionnaire regarding their current health status. The application may be entered into the NFT management system 104 and received by the analysis engine for analysis. See at least Column 19, Line 57 through Column 20 Line 3. Also: That is, the doctor's visit may result generating an NFT 116 with the digital health data collected at the doctor's office. In some embodiments, the health institution may generate the NFT 116 on behalf of the user 102 and charge the user a small amount for minting. See at least Column 20, Lines 15-20 and Fig. 9. Examiner’s note: Questionnaire medical data includes a measurement result (the answers), identification data (indication that the data is questionnaire data), and reliability data (questionnaire data is associated with a degree of reliability);
the second device executes a process of storing the medical data for which the agreement and the verification can be accepted in the storage (The NFT management system 104 may store the NFT associated content 160 in the off-chain storage 162 referred to in the NFT record 150. See at least Column 17, Lines 11-13);
a blockchain system in which each of the patient and the medical institute has a blockchain account, a smart contract of the blockchain system mints a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) including an address for accessing the stored medical data for a blockchain account of the patient in the blockchain system, within a predetermined number of times of minting (an NFT management system can track incoming digital health data, perform one or more analysis operations using the digital health data, and automatically mint one or more NFTs based on the digital health data, which may include the results of the analysis operations. See at least Column 3, Lines 40-45. Also: smart contracts may refer to distributed programs, or distributed applications that can be used to perform the transactions and recordation in the blockchain infrastructure. See at least Column 25, Lines 26-29. Also: NFT associated content 160 can be stored in an off-chain storage 162. The location of the off-chain storage 162 at the time the NFT 116 was minted can be specifically referred to in the NFT record 150. For example, the NFT record 150 can include a URL link to the NFT associated content 160. See at least Column 9, Lines 48-53);
the smart contract accepts a purchase of the NFT from a third device of another person, and the smart contract allows an access to the medical data from a device of an NFT owner if the device if it is successfully authenticated as being the device of the NFT owner (The method may also involve accepting an offer from a purchaser for the non-fungible token via the marketplace. See at least Column 2, Lines 1-3. Also: smart contracts may refer to distributed programs, or distributed applications that can be used to perform the transactions and recordation in the blockchain infrastructure. … smart contracts may be utilized in the exchange of information regarding users. As another example, smart contracts may be utilized in conjunction with financial transactions, such as payments or loans. See at least Column 25, Lines 16-38. Also: the user may the NFT 116 containing their digital health data on the marketplace 704 for bidding. The user 102 may set the minimum bidding price for the NFT 116 and signal to the NFT management system 104 to sell the NFT 116 when the offer price may be higher than the minimum bidding price. In another embodiment, the user 102 may require the purchaser to meet certain criteria before allowing the NFT management system 104 to release the NFT 116 for sale. See at least Column 18, Lines 15-23. Also: The method may also involve accepting an offer from a purchaser for the non-fungible token via the marketplace and providing unobscured digital health data or an encryption key to the purchaser of the non-fungible token. See at least Column 2, Lines 1-5. Also: the smart contract(s) executing on a distributed ledger may make access authorization decisions based on permission information stored on the distributed ledger. See at least Colum 25, Lines 11-13. Also: The request may include a reference to the NFT record 150, which can be accessed via a distributed ledger 156 (block 302). The received request may trigger an owner authentication step (block 304) which may require 1) the identity of the requestor to be verified and 2) the requestor to be the owner of the NFT 116 based on the NFT record 150. See at least Column 10, Lines 61-67. Also: The method 300 may include a step of accessing, or attempting to access, NFT associated content 160 (block 306). The NFT associated content 160 may include digital health data of the user 102 located outside of the distributed ledger 156. The digital health data of the user 102 may include medical charts, fitness data, medical evaluations, aggregated data, anonymized data, medical records, or the like. See at least Column 11, Lines 1-8).
Warnick does not expressly disclose that the first device accepts verification data for authenticity of the medical data.
Sarel teaches the first device accepts verification data for authenticity of the medical data (Reference is now made to FIG. 9 which presents an example of a screen-shot of the response confirmation screen, from a web-browser application questionnaire, according to another embodiment of the current invention. The list of responses made is presented in the pane, 91. By ticking the tick-box, 92, the applicant confirms the information. See at least [0098]).
Warnick provides a system which collects user medical information and creates a non-fungible token to control access to the medical information, upon which the claimed invention’s confirmation of medical information authenticity can be seen as an improvement. However, Sarel demonstrates that the prior art already knew of confirming medical information authenticity during medical information collection. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Sarel to the system of Warnick. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Sarel would have resulted in a system that would be more likely to receive accurate information from patients. As such, the application of Sarel and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Warnick and the teachings of Sarel.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 12260440 B1) in view of Sarel et al. (US 2010/0114593 A1), and further in view of Kruger et al. (US 2022/0406419 A1).
Regarding Claim 18: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Warnock does not explicitly disclose wherein a search smart contract of the blockchain system accepts a search request for an NFT with a search key, and returns a token ID of the NFT of which the search key is included in corresponding medical data, and a part of the medical data coincident with the search key. However, Kruger teaches accept a search request for an NFT with a search key, and returns a token ID of the NFT of which the search key is included in corresponding medical data, and a part of the medical data coincident with the search key (The staking process (step 38 in FIG. 1) is further shown in detail in FIG. 2, whereupon a user may decide to exchange the NFT for yield. The minted NFT 40 (i.e., the created and claimed NFT stored within the user's smart wallet) may opt to stake the minted NFT 40 via step 42, whereupon the NFT may be stored within a database (called a “staking pool”) via step 44 that may be accessible by a research team or third-party team 46. As such, the research or third party team 46 may request access to the database of stored and staked NFTs containing the user's medical data via step 48. The research or third-party team 46 may transfer payment to the staking pool via step 50. Typically, a research or third-party team 46 may be in search of medical data relating to specific conditions. The staking pool may compile the medical data and provide searchable or retrievable NFTs relating to the condition sought. Upon finding medical data in the form of the user's NFT in the staking pool related to the condition sought by the research or third-party team 46, the medical data and associated information of the user's NFT may be transferred to the research or third-party team 46 via step 52. See at least [0066]).
Warnick and Sarel suggest a system which mints NFTs from patient data and allows third parties to purchase the NFTs, upon which the claimed invention’s use of a search function for NFTs can be seen as an improvement. However, Kruger demonstrates that the prior art already knew of searching NFTs for medical data in order to acquire access to those NFTs. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Kruger to the system of Warnick and Sarel. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Kruger would have resulted in a system with an improved user experience by allowing users to find NFTs via a search. As such, the application of Kruger and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Warnick and the teachings of Sarel and Kruger.
Regarding Claim 19: Warnick in view of Sarel and Kruger makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Warnick discloses wherein a third device of a purchaser of the NFT accepts a purchase of an NFT selected, and the smart contract of the blockchain system accepts a transaction of transferring the NFT from a patient corresponding to the NFT to the purchaser, from the third device (The method may also involve accepting an offer from a purchaser for the non-fungible token via the marketplace. See at least Column 2, Lines 1-3. Also: smart contracts may refer to distributed programs, or distributed applications that can be used to perform the transactions and recordation in the blockchain infrastructure. … smart contracts may be utilized in the exchange of information regarding users. As another example, smart contracts may be utilized in conjunction with financial transactions, such as payments or loans. See at least Column 25, Lines 16-38. Also: the user may the NFT 116 containing their digital health data on the marketplace 704 for bidding. The user 102 may set the minimum bidding price for the NFT 116 and signal to the NFT management system 104 to sell the NFT 116 when the offer price may be higher than the minimum bidding price. In another embodiment, the user 102 may require the purchaser to meet certain criteria before allowing the NFT management system 104 to release the NFT 116 for sale. See at least Column 18, Lines 15-23). Additionally, Kruger teaches wherein a third device of a purchase of the NFT accepts a purchase of an NFT selected from a search result (Typically, a research or third-party team 46 may be in search of medical data relating to specific conditions. The staking pool may compile the medical data and provide searchable or retrievable NFTs relating to the condition sought. Upon finding medical data in the form of the user's NFT in the staking pool related to the condition sought by the research or third-party team 46, the medical data and associated information of the user's NFT may be transferred to the research or third-party team 46 via step 52. See at least [0066]). The motivation to combine Warnick, Sarel, and Kruger is the same as explained under claim 18 above, and is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al. (US 12260440 B1) in view of Sarel et al. (US 2010/0114593 A1), and further in view of Agrawal (US 2023/0017499 A1).
Regarding Claim 21: Warnick in view of Sarel makes obvious the above limitations. Warnick does not expressly disclose wherein the smart contract of the blockchain system accepts a second purchase from an owner other than the patient who is an original owner of the NFT corresponding to each piece of medical data, and the smart contract give a part of a purchase cost according to the second purchase to the blockchain account of the patient. However, Agrawal teaches accepts a second purchase from an owner other than the an original owner of the NFT corresponding to each piece of data, and the smart contract give a part of a purchase cost according to the second purchase to the blockchain account of the patient (When an NFT is transferred to a new owner, the original owner may wish to maintain some control over the usage and distribution of the digital resource, as well as receive some portion of the sale price of any subsequent transfers of ownership. See at least [0001]. Also: the resource tracking system may determine, when the NFT has been involved in previous transfers, that a third user (i.e. an original owner or creator of the resource) is not one of the two users involved in the pending transfer, but that the distribution rules of the NFT require that the third user receives a percentage of the pending transfer. See at least [0056]).
Warnick and Sarel suggest a system which mints NFTs from patient data and allows patients to sell their NFTs, upon which the claimed invention’s further provision of additional consideration to patients for second sales can be seen as an improvement. However, Agrawal demonstrates that the prior art already knew of NFT systems which allow originators to be compensated during second sales of NFTs. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Agrawal to the system of Warnick and Sarel. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Agrawal would have resulted in an improved system which would provide patients superior compensation for sharing their information. As such, the application of Agrawal and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Warnick and the teachings of Sarel and Agrawal.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Chandra S R et al. (US 11837341 B1) provides additional details regarding patients verifying their information in a computing system.
Cordonnier et al. (US 2023/0268040 A1) extensively discusses information about using NFTs to distribute patient healthcare data.
Innaje et al. (US 2024/0061951 A1) discusses using smart contracts to manage medical records in a blockchain.
Ketchel, III (US 2021/0342909 A1) further describes a NFT marketplace for patient medical data.
Maeda (US 2024/0079104 A1) describes a system where a provider inputs data to create a patient medical data NFT.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-01-24