DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 12/22/25.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Claims 1-8 are rejected as set forth below.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12555103. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the ‘103 claims anticipate the scope of the instant claims.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19182696 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the ‘696 claims anticipate the scope of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 19429351 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the ‘351 claims anticipate the scope of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19421536 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the ‘536 claims anticipate the scope of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19421554 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the ‘389 claims anticipate the scope of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19429374 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the ‘374 claims anticipate the scope of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim:
identifying, by a marketplace computing entity of the computing infrastructure, a contingency-action token (CAT) associated with a first contingency entity identifier (ID) in response to transfer information associated with the CAT, wherein the CAT is formatted for memorialization on an object distributed ledger, wherein the transfer information includes an updated outcome recipient ID and an updated obligation provider ID, wherein the CAT includes an obligation recipient ID, obligation requirements, an obligation, a triggered outcome, an outcome provider ID, contingent outcome rules, an obligation status, a contingency status, a triggered outcome timeframe, the first contingency entity ID, a longevity status associated with the first contingency entity ID, a triggered outcome level, an obligation provider ID, an outcome recipient ID, and an authenticity indicator, wherein the obligation provider ID is associated with providing of the obligation tied to the obligation recipient ID in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein the outcome recipient ID is associated with a result of the triggered outcome tied to the outcome provider ID in accordance with the contingent outcome rules and the obligation status, wherein a positive obligation status indicates that the obligation has historically been provided in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein the contingency status indicates whether the triggered outcome has been triggered for the contingency entity ID in accordance with the contingent outcome rules as a function of one of the triggered outcome timeframe and the longevity status associated with the contingency entity ID;
verifying, by the marketplace computing entity, that a current timeframe has not surpassed the triggered outcome timeframe;
identifying, by the marketplace computing entity, a user information authenticity computing entity of the computing infrastructure based on at least one of the first contingency entity ID, the obligation provider ID, the outcome recipient ID, the triggered outcome level, and the longevity status associated with the contingency entity ID;
generating, by the user information authenticity computing entity, authenticity information utilizing, from the marketplace computing entity, the at least one of a user ID, the first contingency entity ID, the obligation provider ID, the outcome recipient ID, the triggered outcome level, and the longevity status associated with the contingency entity ID;
interpreting, by the marketplace computing entity, the authenticity information from the user information authenticity computing entity to produce an authenticity indicator associated with the CAT, the authenticity indicator comprising one of an authenticated status and an unauthenticated status;
converting, by the marketplace computing entity, the CAT into an authenticated CAT when the authenticity indicator indicates the authenticated status; updating, by the marketplace computing entity, a smart contract of the authenticated CAT with at least some of the updated smart contract information to produce an updated smart contract of the authenticated CAT;
Specifically, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach a contingency-action token (CAT) that includes a triggered outcome timeframe and identifiers/statuses/indicators (e.g. obligation recipient identifier (ID), obligation requirements, an obligation, a triggered outcome, an outcome provider ID, contingent outcome rules, an obligation status, a contingency status, the triggered outcome timeframe, a contingency entity ID, a longevity status associated with the contingency entity ID, a triggered outcome level, an obligation provider ID, an outcome recipient ID, and an authenticity indicator), identifying a user information authenticity computing entity based on the identifiers/statuses/indicators, generating, via the identified user information authenticity computing entity, authenticity information based on the identifiers/statuses/indicators, producing an authenticity indicator based on the authenticity information, converting the CAT into an authenticated CAT by updating the contingency status of the authenticated CAT and modifying a smart contract of the authenticated CAT to produce an updated smart contract of the authenticated CAT.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 20240112177 to Maier discloses an invention related to identity verification in blockchain transactions. An exemplary identity management system may receive an authorization request that can include a wallet address, a blockchain network identifier, a dApp smart contract address, a function signature, transaction data, and a redirect address. The wallet address is enrolled by providing obtained user data to a KYC provider system, receiving validated user data, providing the validated user data to a sanction provider system, and receiving a sanction list result. An access token is issued that includes an issuer identifier, the function signature, the dApp smart contract address, and an indication of wallet address successfully enrollment. A message is then returned that includes the access token and the transaction data. The dApp smart contract is configured to execute the function after verifying the access token via an identity verification smart contract that is inherited by the dApp smart contract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
