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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/31/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. They comprise of 3 independent groups:
(1) System1: 1-10, and
(2) Method1: 11-19, and
(3) Nt-CRSM1: 20.
As of 8/31/26, claim 11 are as followed:
11. A virtual closing method, comprising:
[1] verifying an identity of a user using at least one of biometric verification, government-issued identification validation, or cryptographic authentication;
[2] accessing a first dataset related to the virtual closing;
[3] enabling at least one of real-time electronic execution or real-time notarization of the first dataset;
[4] capturing at least one of an audio recording or a video recording of the virtual closing;
[5] integrating the at least one audio recording or video recording and the first dataset to generate a second dataset;
[6] generating a closing manifest referencing document binaries corresponding to the first dataset and media binaries corresponding to the at least one audio recording or video recording, wherein the closing manifest identifies each referenced binary using a content address including a hash value;
[7] generating event records associated with the virtual closing and storing the event records in an append only log;
[8] recording the second dataset on a distributed ledger system in a decentralized and immutable format;
[9] transmitting the second dataset to a recording authority;
[10] receiving, from the recording authority, a recording confirmation;
[11] storing the recording confirmation as a content-addressed artifact and updating the closing manifest to reference the recording confirmation artifact;
[12] generating a package hash based on the updated closing manifest and selected event records;
[13] recording the package hash on the distributed ledger system.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[13], are added to the beginning of each step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recites the limitation "selected event records” in step [12]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no step calls for “selecting event records” previously.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recites the limitation "generate event records” in step [7] and it’s not clear how this “event” relates to the previous activities in steps [1]-[6].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-20:
Claim category:
System1: 1-10, and
(2) Method1: 11-19, and
(3) Nt-CRSM1: 20.
Analysis:
Method: claims 11-19, are directed to a method for managing a closing of a real estate transaction with the steps cited above. (Step 1:Yes).
System: claims 1-10, are directed to a system for managing a closing of an real estate transaction with the steps cited above. (Step 1:Yes).
Article: claim 20, is directed to a Nt-CRSM for managing a closing of an real estate transaction with the steps cited above. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for managing a closing of a real estate transaction with the steps [1]-[7], as shown above, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for managing a closing of a real estate transaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
B. Step 2A, Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it deals with a method for managing a closing of a real estate transaction, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] verify an identity (data)… Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA)
[2] access a 1st dataset (data) … Data gathering, IESA.
[3] enable execution… Business activity.
[4] capture … recording (data) Data gathering, IE-SA.
[5] integrate … (data) Data gathering, IE-SA.
[6] generate binaries… Data Capturing system.
[7] generate event records… Data capturing system.
[8] record dataset on DL system. Business activity/accounting/recording identity of item
And its ownership.
[9] transmit the 2nd dataset… Data transferring.
[10] receive … confirmation (data) Data gathering.
[11] store confirmation (data) Data storing, IE-SA.
[12] generate a package hash …. Business activity/accounting/recording identity of item and its ownership.
[13] record the package hash on DL system. Business activity/accounting/record identity and ownership.
Steps [1]-[2], [4], [5], [9], [10], [11] are data gathering, data generating, data transferring, data storing, etc., which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [3] and [6]-[8], [12]-[13] are well known business steps for data capturing and verifying an entity by comparing submitted data to stored data to ensure it passes certain threshold value, finally carrying out a well known accounting step, i.e. recording an item on a record in a well known distributed ledger or a decentralized, digital database shared and synchronize across a network of multiple computers (nodes) allowing for the recording, tracking and sharing of data.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a well known distributed ledger, a decentralized, digital database shared and synchronize across a network of multiple computers (nodes) allowing for the recording, tracking and sharing of data. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for analyzing a request to manage an item in a distributed ledger, provide authentication status of the asset, and record the item, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim?
Steps [1]-[2], [4], [5], [9], [10], [11] are data gathering, data generating, data transferring, data storing, etc., which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [3] and [6]-[8], [12]-[13] are well known business steps for data capturing and verifying an entity by comparing submitted data to stored data to ensure it passes certain threshold value, finally carrying out a well known accounting step, i.e. recording an item on a record in a well known distributed ledger or a decentralized, digital database shared and synchronize across a network of multiple computers (nodes) allowing for the recording, tracking and sharing of data.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a well known distributed ledger, a decentralized, digital database shared and synchronize across a network of multiple computers (nodes) allowing for the recording, tracking and sharing of data. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for analyzing a request to manage an item in a distributed ledger and provide authentication status of the asset, and record the item, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [3] and [6]-[8], [12]-[13] when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) using a generic computer device. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for analyzing a request to manage a closing of a real estate transaction using a distributed ledger, and record the item (asset), are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As for dep. claims 2-5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the transactions, entities DL types, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis of transaction process, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-5 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 6-10 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the transactions document, entities involves and features of the DL, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis of the authentication and smart contract, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 6-10 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection:
Applicant’s comments on pages 8-11 are not persuasive. The claims are virtual closing method using convention data capture system and distributed ledger system for Business activity/accounting/recording identity of item and its ownership. The benefits cited on page 10, 2nd paragraph, and page 11, appear to be well known benefits in a distributed ledger system.
103 Rejection:
The rejection of the claims 1-20 over YERLY, US 2024/0.273.658, and TRIOLA, US 8,204,807, are withdrawn due to significant amendment of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6;30-4:30 PM ET.
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights