DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 03/04.2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 are rejected are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,574,239B2 (“the ‘239 patent”).
Claim 1 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the ‘239 patent recites a computer-implemented security method of using a computing system, the method comprises:
determining, by a computing device of the computing system, whether baseline content associated with a longevity-contingent instrument is qualified for a proposed contingency-action token (CAT) for an object distributed ledger, wherein the baseline content includes an obligation provider identifier (ID) and an outcome recipient ID, wherein the obligation provider ID is associated with providing of an obligation tied to an obligation recipient ID in accordance with obligation requirements, wherein the outcome recipient ID is associated with a result of a triggered outcome tied to an outcome provider ID in accordance with contingent outcome rules and an obligation status, wherein a positive obligation status indicates that the obligation has historically been provided in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein a contingency status indicates whether the triggered outcome has been triggered for a contingency entity identifier in accordance with the contingent outcome rules; and
when the baseline content is qualified:
obtaining, by the computing device, approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument for a life insurance investment utilization;
establishing, by the computing device, CAT content to include the baseline content, the availability status, and further CAT content to produce the CAT, wherein the further CAT content includes:
an obligation provider identifier record of the CAT that includes an original obligation provider identifier (ID) of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific obligation provider ID, wherein the timeframe-specific obligation provider ID is valid for a specific timeframe,
an outcome recipient identifier record of the CAT that includes an original outcome recipient identifier of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and
a timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, wherein the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID is valid for the specific timeframe, a timeframe-specific mapping of the triggered outcome to the original outcome recipient ID and the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, and
a calculated cryptographic token value of the CAT; and
causing, by the computing device in accordance with a securely passing process, generation of a new block affiliated with the CAT via a blockchain of the object distributed ledger, wherein the new block includes the CAT content.
Claim 1 of the ‘239 patent differs since it further recites additional claim limitations, “obtaining, by the computing device, approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument….” However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of the ‘239 patent by removing the limitations directed to obtaining approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument generally in claim 1 of the present application since the claim of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘239 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 7 of the ‘239 patent recites a computing device of a computing system, the computing device comprises:
an interface; a local memory; and
a processing module operably coupled to the interface and the local memory, wherein the processing module functions to:
determine whether baseline content associated with a longevity-contingent instrument is qualified for a proposed contingency-action token (CAT) for an object distributed ledger, wherein the baseline content includes an obligation provider identifier (ID) and an outcome recipient ID, wherein the obligation provider ID is associated with providing of an obligation tied to an obligation recipient ID in accordance with obligation requirements, wherein the outcome recipient ID is associated with a result of a triggered outcome tied to an outcome provider ID in accordance with contingent outcome rules and an obligation status, wherein a positive obligation status indicates that the obligation has historically been provided in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein a contingency status indicates whether the triggered outcome has been triggered for a contingency entity identifier in accordance with the contingent outcome rules; and
when the baseline content is qualified:
obtain approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument for a life insurance investment utilization;
establish CAT content to include the baseline content, the availability status, and further CAT content to produce the CAT, wherein the further CAT content includes:
an obligation provider identifier record of the CAT that includes an original obligation provider identifier (ID) of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific obligation provider ID, wherein the timeframe-specific obligation provider ID is valid for a specific timeframe, an outcome recipient identifier record of the CAT that includes an original outcome recipient identifier of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, wherein the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID is valid for the specific timeframe, a timeframe-specific mapping of the triggered outcome to the original outcome recipient ID and the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, and a calculated cryptographic token value of the CAT; and
cause, in accordance with a securely passing process, generation of a new block affiliated with the CAT via a blockchain of the object distributed ledger, wherein the new block includes the CAT content.
Claim 7 of the ‘239 patent differs since it further recites additional claim limitations, “obtain approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument….” However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 7 of the ‘239 patent by removing the limitations directed to obtaining approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument generally in claim 7 of the present application since the claim of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘239 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 13 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 13 of the ‘239 patent recites a non-transitory computer readable memory comprises:
a first memory element that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a processing module of a computing device of a computing system, causes the processing module to:
determine whether baseline content associated with a longevity-contingent instrument is qualified for a proposed contingency-action token (CAT) for an object distributed ledger, wherein the baseline content includes an obligation provider identifier (ID) and an outcome recipient ID, wherein the obligation provider ID is associated with providing of an obligation tied to an obligation recipient ID in accordance with obligation requirements, wherein the outcome recipient ID is associated with a result of a triggered outcome tied to an outcome provider ID in accordance with contingent outcome rules and an obligation status, wherein a positive obligation status indicates that the obligation has historically been provided in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein a contingency status indicates whether the triggered outcome has been triggered for a contingency entity identifier in accordance with the contingent outcome rules; and
a second memory element that stores operational instructions that, when executed by the processing module, causes the processing module to:
when the baseline content is qualified:
obtain approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument for a life insurance investment utilization;
establish CAT content to include the baseline content, the availability status, and further CAT content to produce the CAT, wherein the further CAT content includes:
an obligation provider identifier record of the CAT that includes an original obligation provider identifier (ID) of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and
a timeframe-specific obligation provider ID, wherein the timeframe-specific obligation provider ID is valid for a specific timeframe,
an outcome recipient identifier record of the CAT that includes an original outcome recipient identifier of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, wherein the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID is valid for the specific timeframe,
a timeframe-specific mapping of the triggered outcome to the original outcome recipient ID and the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, and
a calculated cryptographic token value of the CAT; and
cause, in accordance with a securely passing process, generation of a new block affiliated with the CAT via a blockchain of the object distributed ledger, wherein the new block includes the CAT content.
Claim 13 of the ‘239 patent differs since it further recites additional claim limitations, “obtain approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument….” However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 13 of the ‘239 patent by removing the limitations directed to obtaining approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument generally in claim 13 of the present application since the claim of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘239 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 of the present application
The limitations of claim 2 of the present application are included in claim 2 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 3 of the present application
The limitations of claim 3 of the present application are included in claim 3 of the ‘239 patent respectively.
Claim 4 of the present application
The limitations of claim 4 of the present application are included in claim 4 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 5 of the present application
The limitations of claim 5 of the present application are included in claim 5 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 6 of the present application
The limitations of claim 6 of the present application are included in claim 6 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 8 of the present application
The limitations of claim 8 of the present application are included in claim 8 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 9 of the present application
The limitations of claim 9 of the present application are included in claim 9 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 10 of the present application
The limitations of claim 9 of the present application are included in claim 10 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 11 of the present application
The limitations of claim 11 of the present application are included in claim 10 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 12 of the present application
The limitations of claim 12 of the present application are included in claim 11 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 14 of the present application
The limitations of claim 14 of the present application are included in claim 13 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 15 of the present application
The limitations of claim 15 of the present application are included in claim 14 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 16 of the present application
The limitations of claim 16 of the present application are included in claim 15 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 17 of the present application
The limitations of claim 17 of the present application are included in claim 16 of the ‘239 patent.
Claim 18 of the present application
The limitations of claim 18 of the present application are included in claim 17 of the ‘239 patent.
Claims 1-18 are rejected are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,214B2 (“the ‘214 patent”).
Claim 1 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the ‘214 patent recites a computer-implemented security method of using a computing system, the method comprises:
determining, by a computing device of the computing system, whether baseline content associated with a longevity-contingent instrument is qualified for a proposed contingency-action token (CAT) for an object distributed ledger, wherein the baseline content includes an obligation provider identifier (ID) and an outcome recipient ID, wherein the obligation provider ID is associated with providing of an obligation tied to an obligation recipient ID in accordance with obligation requirements, wherein the outcome recipient ID is associated with a result of a triggered outcome tied to an outcome provider ID in accordance with contingent outcome rules and an obligation status, wherein a positive obligation status indicates that the obligation has historically been provided in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein a contingency status indicates whether the triggered outcome has been triggered for a contingency entity identifier in accordance with the contingent outcome rules; and
when the baseline content is qualified:
obtaining, by the computing device, approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument for a life settlement utilization;
establishing, by the computing device, CAT content to include the baseline content, the availability status, and further CAT content to produce the CAT, wherein the further CAT content includes:
an obligation provider identifier record of the CAT that includes an original obligation provider identifier (ID) of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific obligation provider ID, wherein the timeframe-specific obligation provider ID is valid for a specific timeframe,
an outcome recipient identifier record of the CAT that includes an original outcome recipient identifier of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, wherein the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID is valid for the specific timeframe,
a timeframe-specific mapping of the triggered outcome to the original outcome recipient ID and the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, and
a calculated cryptographic token value of the CAT; and
causing, by the computing device in accordance with a securely passing process, generation of a new block affiliated with the CAT via a blockchain of the object distributed ledger, wherein the new block includes the CAT content.
Claim 1 of the ‘214 patent differs since it further recites additional claim limitations, “obtaining, by the computing device, approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument….” However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of the ‘214 patent by removing the limitations directed to obtaining approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument generally in claim 1 of the present application since the claim of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘214 patent actually perform a similar function. Additionally, claim 1 of the ‘214 patent recites “…the longevity-contingent instrument…for a life settlement utilization” versus “the longevity-contingent instrument…for a life insurance investment utilization” of the current claim of the present application are not patentably distinct from each other. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 7 of the ‘214 patent recites a computing device of a computing system, the computing device comprises:
an interface;
a local memory; and
a processing module operably coupled to the interface and the local memory, wherein the processing module functions to:
determine whether baseline content associated with a longevity-contingent instrument is qualified for a proposed contingency-action token (CAT) for an object distributed ledger, wherein the baseline content includes an obligation provider identifier (ID) and an outcome recipient ID, wherein the obligation provider ID is associated with providing of an obligation tied to an obligation recipient ID in accordance with obligation requirements, wherein the outcome recipient ID is associated with a result of a triggered outcome tied to an outcome provider ID in accordance with contingent outcome rules and an obligation status, wherein a positive obligation status indicates that the obligation has historically been provided in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein a contingency status indicates whether the triggered outcome has been triggered for a contingency entity identifier in accordance with the contingent outcome rules; and
when the baseline content is qualified:
obtain approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument for a life settlement utilization;
establish CAT content to include the baseline content, the availability status, and further CAT content to produce the CAT, wherein the further CAT content includes:
an obligation provider identifier record of the CAT that includes an original obligation provider identifier (ID) of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific obligation provider ID, wherein the timeframe-specific obligation provider ID is valid for a specific timeframe,
an outcome recipient identifier record of the CAT that includes an original outcome recipient identifier of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, wherein the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID is valid for the specific timeframe,
a timeframe-specific mapping of the triggered outcome to the original outcome recipient ID and the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, and
a calculated cryptographic token value of the CAT; and
cause, in accordance with a securely passing process, generation of a new block affiliated with the CAT via a blockchain of the object distributed ledger, wherein the new block includes the CAT content.
Claim 7 of the ‘214 patent differs since it further recites additional claim limitations, “obtain approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument….” However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 7 of the ‘214 patent by removing the limitations directed to obtaining approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument generally in claim 7 of the present application since the claim of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘214 patent actually perform a similar function. Additionally, claim 7 of the ‘214 patent recites “…the longevity-contingent instrument…for a life settlement utilization” versus “the longevity-contingent instrument…for a life insurance investment utilization” of the current claim of the present application are not patentably distinct from each other. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 13 of the present application
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 13 of the ‘214 patent recites a non-transitory computer readable memory comprises:
a first memory element that stores operational instructions that, when executed by a processing module of a computing device of a computing system, causes the processing module to:
determine whether baseline content associated with a longevity-contingent instrument is qualified for a proposed contingency-action token (CAT) for an object distributed ledger, wherein the baseline content includes an obligation provider identifier (ID) and an outcome recipient ID, wherein the obligation provider ID is associated with providing of an obligation tied to an obligation recipient ID in accordance with obligation requirements, wherein the outcome recipient ID is associated with a result of a triggered outcome tied to an outcome provider ID in accordance with contingent outcome rules and an obligation status, wherein a positive obligation status indicates that the obligation has historically been provided in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein a contingency status indicates whether the triggered outcome has been triggered for a contingency entity identifier in accordance with the contingent outcome rules; and
a second memory element that stores operational instructions that, when executed by the processing module, causes the processing module to:
when the baseline content is qualified:
obtain approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument for a life settlement utilization;
establish CAT content to include the baseline content, the availability status, and further CAT content to produce the CAT, wherein the further CAT content includes:
an obligation provider identifier record of the CAT that includes an original obligation provider identifier (ID) of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific obligation provider ID, wherein the timeframe-specific obligation provider ID is valid for a specific timeframe,
an outcome recipient identifier record of the CAT that includes an original outcome recipient identifier of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, wherein the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID is valid for the specific timeframe,
a timeframe-specific mapping of the triggered outcome to the original outcome recipient ID and the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, and
a calculated cryptographic token value of the CAT; and
cause, in accordance with a securely passing process, generation of a new block affiliated with the CAT via a blockchain of the object distributed ledger, wherein the new block includes the CAT content.
Claim 13 of the ‘214 patent differs since it further recites additional claim limitations, “obtain approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument….” However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 13 of the ‘214 patent by removing the limitations directed to obtaining approval with regards to availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument generally in claim 13 of the present application since the claim of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘214 patent actually perform a similar function. Additionally, claim 13 of the ‘214 patent recites “…the longevity-contingent instrument…for a life settlement utilization” versus “the longevity-contingent instrument…for a life insurance investment utilization” of the current claim of the present application are not patentably distinct from each other. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 of the present application
The limitations of claim 2 of the present application are included in claim 2 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 3 of the present application
The limitations of claim 3 of the present application are included in claim 3 of the ‘214 patent respectively.
Claim 4 of the present application
The limitations of claim 4 of the present application are included in claim 4 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 5 of the present application
The limitations of claim 5 of the present application are included in claim 5 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 6 of the present application
The limitations of claim 6 of the present application are included in claim 6 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 8 of the present application
The limitations of claim 8 of the present application are included in claim 8 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 9 of the present application
The limitations of claim 9 of the present application are included in claim 9 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 10 of the present application
The limitations of claim 9 of the present application are included in claim 10 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 11 of the present application
The limitations of claim 11 of the present application are included in claim 10 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 12 of the present application
The limitations of claim 12 of the present application are included in claim 11 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 14 of the present application
The limitations of claim 14 of the present application are included in claim 13 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 15 of the present application
The limitations of claim 15 of the present application are included in claim 14 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 16 of the present application
The limitations of claim 16 of the present application are included in claim 15 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 17 of the present application
The limitations of claim 17 of the present application are included in claim 16 of the ‘214 patent.
Claim 18 of the present application
The limitations of claim 18 of the present application are included in claim 17 of the ‘214 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be in condition for allowance if the double patenting rejections were obviated.
Examiner has reviewed the prior art and in conjunction with other limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13. None of the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches “determining, by a computing device of the computing system, whether baseline content associated with a longevity-contingent instrument is qualified for a proposed contingency-action token (CAT) for an object distributed ledger, wherein the baseline content includes an obligation provider identifier (ID) and an outcome recipient ID, wherein the obligation provider ID is associated with providing of an obligation tied to an obligation recipient ID in accordance with obligation requirements, wherein the outcome recipient ID is associated with a result of a triggered outcome tied to an outcome provider ID in accordance with contingent outcome rules and an obligation status, wherein a positive obligation status indicates that the obligation has historically been provided in accordance with the obligation requirements, wherein a contingency status indicates whether the triggered outcome has been triggered for a contingency entity identifier in accordance with the contingent outcome rules; and when the baseline content is qualified: establishing, by the computing device, CAT content to include the baseline content, an availability status of the longevity-contingent instrument indicating available for a life insurance investment utilization, and further CAT content to produce the CAT, wherein the further CAT content includes: an obligation provider identifier record of the CAT that includes an original obligation provider identifier(ID) of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific obligation provider ID, wherein the timeframe-specific obligation provider ID is valid for a specific timeframe, an outcome recipient identifier record of the CAT that includes an original outcome recipient identifier of the CAT when the CAT was initially generated and a timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, wherein the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID is valid for the specific time frame, a timeframe-specific mapping of the triggered outcome to the original outcome recipient ID and the timeframe-specific outcome recipient ID, and a calculated cryptographic token value of the CAT; and causing, by the computing device in accordance with a securely passing process, generation of a new block affiliated with the CAT via a blockchain of the object distributed ledger, wherein the new block includes the CAT content.”
Dorr D. (US 2006/0031151A1 (hereinafter “Dorr”)) discloses baseline content of a life insurance policy and availability status of the life insurance policy exchange for investment (¶¶21-22, 31-33, 36, 39). Jass, S. (US 2019/0362430A1 (hereinafter “Jass”)) discloses causing a blockchain to generate a new block including life insurance settlement (¶¶8, 29, 32, 60, 74). Also, Lutnick, et al. (US 2023/0116472A1) teaches a method includes accessing a listing of a plurality of profiles of life insurance policies. A profile is selected from the listing, and the trading status of the profile can be viewed. A buy command or sell command is submitted to an exchange system to trade the life insurance policy that is associated with the selected profile. Magerkurth et al. (US 2021/0264052A1) teaches methods for managing and/or processing a blockchain to maintain data security for confidential and/or personal data are provided, and the disclosed data security techniques may enable access sharing functionality utilizing the blockchain. Hill et al. (US 2022/0391982A1) teaches a decentralized investment fund operates according to consensus code on a shared ledger and raises capital by issuing ownership tokens on the shared ledger. Gordon et al. (US 10,713,722B2) teaches methods for offering and purchasing tokenized securities on a blockchain platform meeting current and future federal, state, and offering and holding entity rules and regulations. Sakaue et al. (US 2006/0206438A1) teaches enabling a commercial trade wherein information about dealing an optional life settlement policy is disclosed transparently and fairly, and deal the life settlement policy at a proper price. An auction system between a seller and a bidder via a communication network constructed to calculate a proper price of a viatical and life settlement policy based on an insured, ab estimated remaining life of the insured calculated by a doctor, an insurance due to be paid by the insured, a commission fee of an investment trust institution and the annual interest of a viatical and life settlement policy so that it is possible to prevent the viatical and life settlement policy from being set at an illegally low price and for the insured to sell the life settlement policy at an optimized market price while fairness of a trade is maintained.
Therefore, no prior art rejection is being made based on these differences between the prior and what is recited in the claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached on (571)272-6708 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights