CTNF 19/134,364 CTNF 89567 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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are currently pending. Claim 4 is canceled in the Claims filed on May 30, 2025. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements submitted on May 30, 2025 and January 30, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by Examiner. 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 1-3 and 5-10 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. Step 1 Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-3 are drawn to a system for authenticating a vaccination history, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 5-7 are drawn to a method for authenticating a vaccination history, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 8-10 are drawn to a non-transitory medium for authenticating a vaccination history, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Prong 1 of Step 2A Claim 1 , which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A vaccination certificate verification system, comprising: at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to perform: registering information identifying a vaccination history in a blockchain and issuing a vaccination certificate including information regarding the vaccination history after registration of the vaccination history ; and determining that the vaccination certificate is authentic in a case where information identifying the vaccination history included in information regarding the history in the vaccination certificate exists in the blockchain. The underlined limitations as shown above recite the abstract idea of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, the steps of registering information identifying a vaccination history, and determining that a vaccination certificate is authentic in a case where the information identifying the vaccination history exists recites at least an evaluation) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. a processor and memory interacting with a blockchain), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of registering information identifying a vaccination history, and determining that a vaccination certificate is authentic in a case where the information identifying the vaccination history exists recites at least following rules or instructions to authenticate a patient’s vaccination status), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below. Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 5 and 8 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1 , because the only difference between Claims 1, 5, and 8 is that Claim 1 recites a system, whereas Claim 5 recites a method, and Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Dependent Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9-10 include other limitations, for example Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9-10 recite determining the authenticity of the vaccination certificate based on a comparison of data saved in a particular block of the blockchain, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9-10 nonetheless recite the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 5, and 8 . Hence Claims 1-3 and 5-10 recite the aforementioned abstract idea. Prong 2 of Step 2A Claims 1, 5, and 8 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the processor, memory, and blockchain) amount to no more than limitations which: amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the processor, memory, and blockchain, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and/or recites additional elements at such a high level of generality so as to not provide meaningful limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more, e.g. see [0065]-[0067] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim limitation of the blockchain, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of distributed ledgers, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, dependent Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9-10 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the authenticating of the vaccination certificate being based on a block number of a blockchain recited in dependent Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9-10 ), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1, 5, and 8 , and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. Hence Claims 1-3 and 5-10 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Claims 1, 5, and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the processor, memory, and blockchain), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which: amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by: The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature: [0065]-[0067] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the processor, memory, and blockchain) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems; Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the creating and maintaining of vaccination data on the blockchain; Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the additional elements recite storing vaccination data in the blockchain, and retrieving the vaccination data from the blockchain in order to determine the authenticity of a vaccination certificate; Dependent Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9-10 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the use of the block number recited in dependent Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9-10 ), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the use of the block number recited in dependent Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 9-10 ), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1, 5, and 8 , and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Hence, Claims 1-3 and 5-10 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Day (US 2022/0191048) . Regarding Claim 1 , Day discloses the following: A vaccination certificate verification system, comprising: at least a processor (The system includes a computing device, for example a smartphone or laptop, e.g. see Day [0074] and [0086].) ; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor (The system stores data on the computing device, e.g. see Day [0074] and [0086].) , wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to perform: registering information identifying a vaccination history in a blockchain (The system captures information regarding a vaccination including identity information and vaccination data such as the patient having been administered a vaccine, and submits the captured information to a KSI blockchain e.g. see Day [0021] and [0041]-[0046].) and issuing a vaccination certificate including information regarding the vaccination history after registration of the vaccination history (The system utilizes the captured data to create a vaccination certificate, e.g. see Day [0021] and [0041]-[0046].) ; and determining that the vaccination certificate is authentic in a case where information identifying the vaccination history included in information regarding the history in the vaccination certificate exists in the blockchain (The system verifies (i.e. determines that the certificate is authentic) the vaccination certificate by using the KSI blockchain, for example via comparison to an authentic vaccine repository using a digital twin of each vaccine, the physical vaccine vial, and identification information of the patient, e.g. see Day [0037]-[0039], [0046]-[0047], [0051], and [0101].) . Regarding Claims 5 and 8 , the limitations of Claims 5 and 8 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1 , with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites a system, whereas Claim 5 recites a method and Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claim 5 and 8 , Examiner notes that Day teaches that the functions of the system may be executed as software instructions (i.e. which may be interpreted as steps for a method) executed by a machine, e.g. see Day [0074] and [0086], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claims 5 and 8 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-3, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day in view of Rueda Galan (US 2020/0357004) . Regarding Claim 2 , Day discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , but does not teach and Rueda Galan teaches following: The vaccination certificate verification system according to claim 1, wherein a block number of a block of the blockchain in which the vaccination history is registered is encoded in the information regarding the history (The system includes a distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger stores a product identifier associated with product details including a unique identifier, authentication data, and ownership data, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0058], wherein the ownership data includes an ownership history, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0067]. Furthermore, the system may store the product identifier in the form of a QR code, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0058], wherein the QR code is linked to a URL for a specific block (i.e. a block number) on the distributed ledger, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0083].) ; and wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions to implement: reading information regarding the history, decoding the vaccination history and the block number, calculating information identifying the decoded vaccination history and sending the decoded block number to the blockchain (The system receives a scan of the QR code, retrieves product details and the URL from the QR code, and utilizes the URL to query the distributed ledger to authenticate the product, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0085]-[0086].) ; receiving data of a block of the block number from the blockchain (The system checks to see that the block exists on the distributed ledger, and then checks to see that the product details obtained from the QR code match the details on the distributed ledger, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0087].) ; and determining that the vaccination certificate is authentic if the same information as the information identifying the decoded vaccination history exists in the block of the block number received from the blockchain (The system determines that the product is authentic when the data obtained from the QR code matches the data on the distributed ledger, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0087].) . Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of distributed ledgers to modify Day to incorporate the authentication steps utilizing the URL (i.e. block number) as taught by Rueda Galan in order to provide confidence in the authenticity of a product, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0058] and [0087]. Regarding Claim 3 , Day discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , but does not teach and Rueda Galan teaches following: The vaccination certificate verification system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions to implement: reading information regarding the history, decoding the vaccination history, calculates information identifying the decoded vaccination history and sending the information identifying the decoded vaccination history to the blockchain (The system receives a scan of a QR code, retrieves product details including an ownership history from the QR code, and utilizes the data obtained from the QR code to query the distributed ledger to authenticate the product, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0067] and [0085]-[0086].) ; receiving a block number of a block including a transaction which includes the same information as the information identifying the decoded vaccination history and a transaction ID of the transaction from the blockchain if it has been verified that the same information as the information identifying the decoded vaccination history exists in the blockchain (The data obtained from the QR code includes a URL for a specific block (i.e. a block number) on the distributed ledger that contains authentication data (i.e. a transaction ID) for authenticating product detail data obtained from the QR code, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0083] and [0086]-[0087].) ; and determining that the vaccination certificate is authentic when receiving the block number and the transaction ID (The URL for the block is used to access the authentication data (i.e. the transaction ID) on the distributed ledger, wherein the authentication data is compared to the product details obtained from the QR code, and the product is deemed authentic when the authentication data matches the product details, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0086]-[0087].) . Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of distributed ledgers to modify Day to incorporate the authentication steps utilizing the URL (i.e. block number) and authentication data (i.e. transaction ID) as taught by Rueda Galan in order to provide confidence in the authenticity of a product, e.g. see Rueda Galan [0058] and [0087]. Regarding Claims 6-7 and 9-10 , the limitations of Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claims 2-3 , with the sole difference being that Claims 2-3 recite a system, whereas Claims 6-7 recite a method and Claims 9-10 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claim 6-7 and 9-10 , Examiner notes that Day teaches that the functions of the system may be executed as software instructions (i.e. which may be interpreted as steps for a method) executed by a machine, e.g. see Day [0074] and [0086], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claims 2-3 are similarly applied to Claims 6-7 and 9-10 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows: Hernandez-Ramos, “Sharing Pandemic Vaccination Certificates Through Blockchain: Case Study and Performance Evaluation,” European Commission Joint Research Centre, January 13, 2021 – teaches utilizing blockchain to store vaccination certificates, and utilizing the blockchain in order to authenticate/validate the vaccination certificates. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific. 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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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. /JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 2 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 3 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 4 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 5 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 6 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 7 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 8 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 10 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 11 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 12 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 13 Art Unit: 3681 Application/Control Number: 19/134,364 Page 14 Art Unit: 3681
Prosecution Insights