DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response the application filed on 07/17/2016, the Amendment & Remark filed on 09/15/2025 and the Request for Continued Examination filed on 09/15/2025.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-18 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.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to apparatuses and manufacture, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
The claims recite:
at least one memory;
a component collection in the at least one memory,
any of at least one processor disposed in communication with the at least one memory, the any of at least one processor executing processor executable instructions from the component collection, storage of the component collection structured with processor-executable instructions comprising:
obtain a crypto vote request associated with a poll from a user device;
obtain voter authentication from the user;
determine that the user is authorized for voting in the poll based on the obtained voter authentication datastructure;
generate an authentication token for the authorized user;
generate a crypto vote user interface (UI) and provide the crypto vote UI to the user;
obtain a crypto vote input datastructure from the user device,
in which the crypto vote input datastructure specifies a conditional vote datastructure,
in which the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions,
in which each vote condition datastructure in the set of vote conditions is structure as having a conditional operand for evaluation and operable determining a vote transaction and is associated with a vote outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle;
instantiate exclusively the conditional vote based on the conditional vote in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure;
determine that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle datastructure provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined vote condition;
determine vote outcome of the conditional vote as the vote outcome associated with the determined vote condition.
in which instructions obtaining voter authentication further include instructions obtaining login credentials for an account created based on the user providing proof of identity.
in which instructions obtaining voter authentication further include
instructions detecting that the user satisfied a smart contract instantiated in the public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure.
in which the user satisfies the smart contract by transferring a crypto token from a crypto address known to belong to the user.
in which instructions to determine that the user is authorized for voting in the poll further include instructions detecting that the user is on a voters list associated with the poll.
in which the authentication token is generated such that the user’s
identity cannot be determined from the authentication token.
in which the crypto vote UI is a smart contract generator GUI.
in which an aggregated blockchain oracle is any of: a market data provider, a GPS data provider, a date/time provider, a crowdsourced decentralized data provider, a news provider, an activity monitor, an RSS feed.
in which a vote outcome associated with a vote condition is a fractional vote that specifies a plurality of vote outcomes and a voting power portion allocated to each of the plurality of vote outcomes.
in which the instantiated conditional vote is encrypted.
in which the evaluated aggregated blockchain oracle data is combined crowdsourced decentralized product usage data.
the processor issues instructions from the vote processing component, stored in the memory, to: facilitate a vote action associated with the determined vote outcome of the conditional vote.
in which the vote action is any of: restrict access to an account, release an extra key, purchase stock, vote in a specified way in another poll.
in which the evaluated aggregated blockchain oracle data includes securities transactions associated with an entity.
in which the vote action is to replicate the securities transactions of the entity.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers processing conditional votes of authorized voters which falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “at least one memory”, “via the at least one processor”, “at least one processor disposed in communication with the at least one memory, the at least one processor executing processor executable instructions”, “user device”, “user interface (UI)” and “means to…” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, but for invoking “any of at least one processor” to perform, “obtain a crypto vote request datastructure associated with a poll from a user; obtain, via at least one processor, voter authentication datastructure from the user device” encompasses the commercial interaction step of obtaining the request for the authentication;
but for invoking “any of at least one processor” to perform, “determine that the user is authorized for voting in the poll based on the obtained voter authentication datastructure” encompasses the commercial interaction step of determining whether the user is authorized to vote in the poll;
but for invoking “any of at least one processor” to perform, “generate an authentication token datastructure for the authorized user device” encompasses the commercial interaction step of generating the credential;
but for invoking “any of at least one processor” to perform, “generate a crypto vote user interface (UI) and provide the crypto vote UI to the user” encompasses the commercial interaction step of providing an interaction session with the user;
but for invoking “any of at least one processor” to perform, “obtain a crypto vote input datastructure from the user device, in which the crypto vote input datastructure specifies a conditional vote datastructure,
in which the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions,
in which each vote condition datastructure in the set of vote conditions is structure as having a conditional operand for evaluation and operable determining a vote transaction and is associated with a vote outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle” encompasses the commercial interaction step of obtaining the vote;
but for invoking “any of at least one processor” to perform, “instantiate exclusively the conditional vote in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure” encompasses the commercial interaction step of entering the conditional vote into the blockchain datastructure;
but for invoking “any of at least one processor” to perform, “determine that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle data provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined vote condition” encompasses the commercial interaction step of determining the vote condition from blockchain oracle data;
but for invoking “any of at least one processor” to perform, “determine vote outcome of the conditional vote as the vote outcome associated with the determined vote condition” encompasses the commercial interaction step of determining the vote outcome.
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically. The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “non-transitory storage medium”, “blockchain” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception. The additional element(s) of “user interface (UI)” are generically recited to perform input/output steps described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the interface accomplish it.
The additional element(s) of “blockchain oracle” are generically recited to perform Judicial Exception steps of providing data described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the oracle accomplish it
The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “crypto” are appended to abstract elements such as “token” and “vote”, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements that require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions includes obtaining request (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec), obtaining authentication (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec), generating a user interface (A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.), obtaining conditional input (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec), generating an authentication token (Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. creating and maintaining “shadow account), instantiating data on blockchain datastructure (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am.). These generic computer functions are factually determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry as referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II according the USPTO Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) dated April 19 2018. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to conduct conditional voting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broberg et al (US 2014/0195415) in view of YAGO (US 2015/0206106) further in view of Lindholm et al (US 2006/0236384)
As per claim 1, Broberg teaches an apparatus comprising:
at least one memory; (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0030 and 0074)
a component collection in the at least one memory, (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0030 and 0074)
at least one processor disposed in communication with the at least one memory, the at least one processor executing processor executable instructions from the component collection, (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0030 and 0074) , the component collection storage structured with processor-executable instructions comprising:
obtain, via at least one processor, a vote request associated with a poll from a user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0030, 0034, 0037-0039 and 0041)
obtain, via at least one processor, voter authentication from the user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, that the user is authorized to vote in the poll based on the obtained voter authentication data; (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
generate, via at least one processor, a vote user interface (UI) and provide the vote UI to the user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0037-0039 and 0073-0074)
obtain, via at least one processor, a vote input from the user, wherein the vote input specifies a conditional vote, wherein the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions, and wherein each vote condition in the set of vote conditions is configured having a conditional operand for evaluation and operable determining a vote transaction and is associated with a vote outcome and with a tracker; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional vote in computer datastructure; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating tracker data provided by the computer system associated with the determined vote condition; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, vote outcome of the conditional vote as the vote outcome associated with the determined vote condition. (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
Broberg does not teach conducting the conditional voting process using crypto datastructure,
obtain, via at least one processor, a crypto vote input from the user, in which the crypto vote input specifies a conditional vote, in which the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions, and in which each vote condition in the set of vote conditions is structure as having a conditional operand for evaluation and operable determining a vote transaction and is associated with a vote outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle;
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional vote in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure;
determine, via at least one processor, that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle data provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined vote condition;
However, Yago teaches using crypto datastructure to conduct conditional operation; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
obtain, via at least one processor, a crypto input from the user, wherein the crypto input specifies a conditional action, wherein the conditional action includes a set of conditions, and wherein each condition in the set of conditions is associated with an outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional action in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
determine, via at least one processor, that a condition in the set of conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle data provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined condition; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditional voting system taught by Broberg with teaching from Yago to implement the conditional voting system onto blockchain datastructure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as blockchain datastructure offers transparency to the operation.
Broberg in view of Yago does not teach generate, via at least one processor, an authentication token for the authorized user;
Lindholm teaches generating an authentication token for the authorized user. (See Lindholm Paragraph 0011 and 0029)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditional voting system taught by Broberg in view of Yago with teaching from Lindholm to provide an authentication token for the authorized user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as such authentication token allows seamless subsequent authentication.
As per claim 2, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which instructions obtaining voter authentication further include instructions obtaining login credentials for an account created based on the user providing proof of identity. (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
As per claim 3, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which instructions obtaining voter authentication further include instructions detecting that the user satisfied a smart contract instantiated in the public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure. (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083 regarding the detecting conditional vote agreement. Also, See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069 and 0086. See Claim 1 for modification rationale. A smart contract is interpreted under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation as a conditional agreement residing in blockchain datastructure.)
As per claim 4, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which the user satisfies the smart contract by transferring a crypto token from a crypto address known to belong to the user. (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069 and 0086. See Claim 1 for modification rationale.)
As per claim 5, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which instructions to determine that the user is authorized to vote in the poll further include instructions detecting that the user is on a voters list associated with the poll. (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
As per claim 6, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which the authentication token is generated such that the user’s identity cannot be determined from the authentication token. (See Lindholm Paragraph 0029. See Claim 1 for modification rationale.)
As per claim 7, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which the crypto vote UI is a smart contract generator GUI. (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083. A smart contract is interpreted under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation as a conditional agreement residing in blockchain datastructure. The Broberg GUI )
As per claim 8, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which an aggregated blockchain oracle is any of: a market data provider, a GPS data provider, a date/time provider, a crowdsourced decentralized data provider, a news provider, an activity monitor, an RSS feed. (Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069 and 0086, a public ledger is a crowdsourced decentralized data provider.)
As per claim 9, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which a vote outcome associated with a vote condition is a fractional vote that specifies a plurality of vote outcomes and a voting power portion allocated to each of the plurality of vote outcomes. (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
As per claim 10, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which the instantiated conditional vote is encrypted. (See Broberg Paragraph 0065-0066 and Yago Paragraph 0054)
As per claim 11, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which the evaluated aggregated blockchain oracle data is combined crowdsourced decentralized product usage data. (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
As per claim 12, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
the processor issues instructions from the vote processing component, stored in the memory, to:
facilitate a vote action associated with the determined vote outcome of the conditional vote. (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
As per claim 13, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which the vote action is any of: restrict access to an account, release an extra key, purchase stock, vote in a specified way in another poll. (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083, to further invest in security suggests purchasing stock.)
As per claim 14, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which the evaluated aggregated blockchain oracle data includes securities transactions associated with an entity. (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083, a Yes vote to invest in a security functionality equivalent to a securities transaction. Also see Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069 and 0086, the monitoring module in Yago is functionality equivalent to a blockchain oracle. See Claim 1 for modification rationale.)
As per claim 15, Broberg in view of Yago in view of Lindholm teaches:
in which the vote action is to replicate the securities transactions of the entity. (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083, a Yes if pass vote to invest in a security effectively replicates the securities transaction of other voters who voted Yes. Also see Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069 and 0086, the monitoring module in Yago is functionality equivalent to a blockchain oracle. See Claim 1 for modification rationale.)
As per claim 16, Broberg teaches a non-transient physical medium storing processor-executable components, the components, comprising:
a component collection, (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0030 and 0074) the component collection storage structured with processor-executable instructions comprising:
obtain, via at least one processor, a vote request associated with a poll from a user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0030, 0034, 0037-0039 and 0041)
obtain, via at least one processor, voter authentication from the user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, that the user is authorized to vote in the poll based on the obtained voter authentication data; (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
generate, via at least one processor, a vote user interface (UI) and provide the vote UI to the user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0037-0039 and 0073-0074)
obtain, via at least one processor, a vote input from the user, in which the vote input specifies a conditional vote, in which the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions, and in which each vote condition in the set of vote conditions is configured having a conditional operand for evaluation and operable determining a vote transaction and is associated with a vote outcome and with a tracker; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional vote in computer datastructure; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating tracker data provided by the computer system associated with the determined vote condition; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, vote outcome of the conditional vote as the vote outcome associated with the determined vote condition. (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
Broberg does not teach conducting the conditional voting process using crypto datastructure,
obtain, via at least one processor, a crypto vote input from the user, wherein the crypto vote input specifies a conditional vote, wherein the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions, and wherein each vote condition in the set of vote conditions is associated with a vote outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle;
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional vote in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure;
determine, via at least one processor, that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle data provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined vote condition;
However, Yago teaches using crypto datastructure to conduct conditional operation; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
obtain, via at least one processor, a crypto input from the user, wherein the crypto input specifies a conditional action, wherein the conditional action includes a set of conditions, and wherein each condition in the set of conditions is associated with an outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional action in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
determine, via at least one processor, that a condition in the set of conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle data provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined condition; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditional voting system taught by Broberg with teaching from Yago to implement the conditional voting system onto blockchain datastructure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as blockchain datastructure offers transparency to the operation.
Broberg in view of Yago does not teach generate, via at least one processor, an authentication token for the authorized user;
Lindholm teaches generating an authentication token for the authorized user. (See Lindholm Paragraph 0011 and 0029)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditional voting system taught by Broberg in view of Yago with teaching from Lindholm to provide an authentication token for the authorized user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as such authentication token allows seamless subsequent authentication.
As per claim 17, Broberg teaches a system comprising:
means to store a component collection; (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0030 and 0074)
means to process processor-executable instructions from the component collection, (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0030 and 0074) the component collection storage structured with processor-executable instructions including:
obtain, via at least one processor, a vote request associated with a poll from a user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0030, 0034, 0037-0039 and 0041)
obtain, via at least one processor, voter authentication from the user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, that the user is authorized to vote in the poll based on the obtained voter authentication data; (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
generate, via at least one processor, a vote user interface (UI) and provide the vote UI to the user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0037-0039 and 0073-0074)
voter authentication component means, to:
obtain, via at least one processor, a vote input from the user, wherein the vote input specifies a conditional vote, wherein the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions, and wherein each vote condition in the set of vote conditions is associated with a vote outcome and with a tracker; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional vote in computer datastructure; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating tracker data provided by the computer system associated with the determined vote condition; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, vote outcome of the conditional vote as the vote outcome associated with the determined vote condition. (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
Broberg does not teach conducting the conditional voting process using crypto datastructure,
obtain, via at least one processor, a crypto vote input from the user, in which the crypto vote input specifies a conditional vote, in which the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions, and in which each vote condition in the set of vote conditions is structure as having a conditional operand for evaluation and operable determining a vote transaction and is associated with a vote outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle;
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional vote in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure;
determine, via at least one processor, that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle data provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined vote condition;
However, Yago teaches using crypto datastructure to conduct conditional operation; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
obtain, via at least one processor, a crypto input from the user, wherein the crypto input specifies a conditional action, wherein the conditional action includes a set of conditions, and wherein each condition in the set of conditions is associated with an outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional action in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
determine, via at least one processor, that a condition in the set of conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle data provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined condition; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditional voting system taught by Broberg with teaching from Yago to implement the conditional voting system onto blockchain datastructure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as blockchain datastructure offers transparency to the operation.
Broberg in view of Yago does not teach generate, via at least one processor, an authentication token for the authorized user;
Lindholm teaches generating an authentication token for the authorized user. (See Lindholm Paragraph 0011 and 0029)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditional voting system taught by Broberg in view of Yago with teaching from Lindholm to provide an authentication token for the authorized user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as such authentication token allows seamless subsequent authentication.
As per claim 18, Broberg teaches a method comprising:
processing processor executable instructions via at least one processor from a component collection stored in at least one memory, (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0030 and 0074) , the component collection storage structured with processor-executable instructions comprising:
obtain, via at least one processor, a vote request associated with a poll from a user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0030, 0034, 0037-0039 and 0041)
obtain, via at least one processor, voter authentication from the user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, that the user is authorized for voting in the poll based on the obtained voter authentication data; (See Broberg Paragraph 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
generate, via at least one processor, a vote user interface (UI) and provide the vote UI to the user; (See Broberg Paragraph 0021, 0037-0039 and 0073-0074)
executing processor-implemented vote processing component instructions to:
obtain, via at least one processor, a vote input from the user, in which the vote input specifies a conditional vote, in which the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions, and in which each vote condition in the set of vote conditions is structure as having a conditional operand for evaluation and operable to determine a vote transaction and is associated with a vote outcome and with a tracker; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional vote in computer datastructure; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating tracker data provided by the computer system associated with the determined vote condition; (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
determine, via at least one processor, vote outcome of the conditional vote as the vote outcome associated with the determined vote condition. (See Broberg Paragraph 0017, 0037-0039, 0074 and 0083)
Broberg does not teach conducting the conditional voting process using crypto datastructure,
obtain, via at least one processor, a crypto vote input from the user, wherein the crypto vote input specifies a conditional vote, wherein the conditional vote includes a set of vote conditions, and wherein each vote condition in the set of vote conditions is associated with a vote outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle;
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional vote in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure;
determine, via at least one processor, that a vote condition in the set of vote conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle data provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined vote condition;
However, Yago teaches using crypto datastructure to conduct conditional operation; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
obtain, via at least one processor, a crypto input from the user, wherein the crypto input specifies a conditional action, wherein the conditional action includes a set of conditions, and wherein each condition in the set of conditions is associated with an outcome and with an aggregated blockchain oracle; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional action in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
determine, via at least one processor, that a condition in the set of conditions has been satisfied by evaluating aggregated blockchain oracle data provided by the aggregated blockchain oracle associated with the determined condition; (See Yago Paragraph 0007, 0046-0049, 0051, 0069, 0075 and 0086)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditional voting system taught by Broberg with teaching from Yago to implement the conditional voting system onto blockchain datastructure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as blockchain datastructure offers transparency to the operation.
Broberg in view of Yago does not teach generate, via at least one processor, an authentication token for the authorized user;
Lindholm teaches generating an authentication token for the authorized user. (See Lindholm Paragraph 0011 and 0029)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the conditional voting system taught by Broberg in view of Yago with teaching from Lindholm to provide an authentication token for the authorized user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as such authentication token allows seamless subsequent authentication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the Office Action improperly decreed all claim elements to be abstract, conventional and/ or and impermissibly ignores unique limitation and case law, the examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous response to argument. As analyzed in the rejection, the claimed invention encompasses the processing of conditional vote. The so-called “unique ability to have very complex conditional requirements for voting employing oracles with complex extraneous condition aggregation to memorialize both conditions and votes on a public ledger, thereby increasing security of vote fidelity, preventing tampering, while efficiently collecting conditional information that would be in many cases impossible for humans to amass or ascertain,” functions no more unique than receiving the user vote, entering the vote in a blockchain datastructure and determining vote outcome based on oracle data provided by the blockchain datastructure. The applicant contended that “the sheer variety of oracle-based conditions is way beyond the capabilities of humans and that entering information on the blockchain is not something humans can perform”. However, it should be noted that the assertion that the “oracle based conditions is way beyond the capabilities of humans” is completely unsubstantiated by the Specification. For example, Specification 0154 recites “Through the scripting system, the sender can create very complex conditions that people have to meet in order to claim the output's value”, which indicates that the conditions can be created by human sender. Specification 0374 further exemplified that the voting conditions include “the user’s vote changes depending on a company’s closing stock price”. The Specification’s disclosure of the conditions contradicts the applicant’s assertion that “the sheer variety of oracle-based conditions is way beyond the capabilities of humans”. Furthermore, the Specification does not substantiate the assertion that human cannot enter information to a blockchain. Specification 0350 shows an example of how data can be instantiated to a blockchain using command, which indicates that entering information to a blockchain is not beyond a human capabilities. It should also be noted that the inquiry of whether a task can be performed by a human with pen and paper is an inquiry relevant only to the abstract idea grouping of Mental Process, while the instant claims are identified to recite interpersonal interaction such as conducting a vote. The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation”, which is a “fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy” and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05.
Moreover, considering the role of the processor in the entirety of the claimed invention, the processor merely replaces a human operator to provide authentication, receive vote input having a vote condition, and instantiate the conditional into blockchain datastructure. Indeed, the blockchain datastructure is not part of the claimed invention. The claimed invention claimed toward only the processor’s interaction with a blockchain datastructure, namely instantiating an entry to the datastructure and obtaining oracle data provided by the datastructure. As noted, the specific blockchain technology is not claimed by the applicant. For example, a hypothetical invention claiming a processor entering an equation to a supercomputer does not claim the technology of the supercomputer; a method inputting value into a calculator does not claim the technology of the calculator. There is nothing technical about punching numbers in to a computer or database. Similarly, the claimed invention merely includes a processor that processes transaction requests of blockchain transaction. As a result, the applicant’s argument relying on the benefit of blockchain datastructure, such as “increasing security of vote fidelity, preventing tampering, while efficiently collecting conditional information” would not an improvement caused by the claimed invention. Furthermore, the applicant repeatedly emphasized that vote conditional are “very complex” without demonstrating how “very complex” it is, nor does the Specification disclose its complexity. Baseless assertion should be avoided for expediting prosecution.
As per the assertion about unconventional feature, it should be noted that the Step 2B is an analysis of determining whether the additional elements or their arrangement is unconventional. Abstract elements, although may be unconventional, novel and non-obvious, would not amount an abstract idea to be eligible for patent. For example, the Alice Corp. invention recites an unconventional way of settling transaction, but that does not change the fact that “mitigating settlement risk” is an ineligible abstract idea. As far as the claimed invention, merely invoking a generic computing component such as processor to perform steps of the cited abstract idea would not result in any non-conventional arrangement or inventive concept. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) for further discussion about why the “apply it” type of drafting effort is not considered to include inventive concept) Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the cited references do not teach “instantiate, via at least one processor, the conditional vote in a public socially aggregated blockchain datastructure”, the examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains on the previous response to argument. Per the previous Response to Argument, the applicant argued that the recording a transaction on public ledger is not equivalent or analogue to the claimed “instantiate”, arguing that the transaction are not condition. However, Yago teaches trigger condition based (rule based) cryto-transaction with exception of explicitly providing a user interface for selected[ing] trigger condition, for which transaction conditional recorded in the public ledger and subsequent tracked for the triggering of the conditional. (See at least Yago Paragraph 0069) The Specification of the instant application does not provide any technical detail as to how the conditional vote is instantiated into a blockchain datastructure. Since the claimed invention does not distinguish the alleged technological different of instantiating vote condition over instantiating transaction condition, such operation is functionally equivalent to the claimed invention entering a vote condition into the blockchain datastructure and determine the conditional outcome based on data provided by the blockchain. The applicant further argued that Yago does not teach storing condition on a public ledger, asserting that only transaction is being stored to public ledger. However, it should be noted that the contract being instantiated in the public ledger in Yago is a conditional transaction, (at least Yago Paragraph 0075 recites “the first private ledger 402 writes the first contract 130 to itself, the second private ledger 404 and/or to the public ledger 406 in step 10.16.”) the condit