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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended remedy the deficiencies under 35 USC 101. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant has only added limitations that merely narrow the abstract idea. Applicant further argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because, Applicant’s disclosure describes, for example, “the system may generate a dependency graph of an event outcome and run one or more predictive models on the results to come up with the number of overbooking that the system can accommodate across all options based on the outcome of events. Accordingly, the system can manage availability constraints and outcome-based reservation options across multiple resources with the use of dependency-graph based predictive models.” The Examiner disagrees. This is not evidence of a practical application. It actually supports the Examiner’s assertions that the additional elements are being used as tools rto perform the abstract steps. In this instance, the dependency graphs are used to manage constraints and reservation options. Applicant further argues, “the Applicant's disclosure describes, for example, “[tlhe example embodiments would be difficult to implement on a traditional database. The blockchain- based system described herein enables coordination of reservations made across multiple agents/sellers and ensures that the provided options do not violate constraints on the total available tickets. It is unlikely that competing agents would agree on a central participant owning and operating a database. Further, reservations across multiple resources (such as flight and hotel) cannot be coordinated with untrusting entities on a traditional database.’ These statements do not appear to be supported by evidence.
Applicant further argues that the system provides a number of technical solutions. The Examiner disagrees. These solutions are realized not because there is an improvement to the technology, but through the use of the technology. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
predict conditional options for at least one upcoming event, wherein
the historical event data is directly stored on a ledger
using specific data to obtain a final trained machine learning model, and
the specific data includes additional data to the historical event data;
generate a dependency graph that represents dependencies of different
outcomes associated with the at least one upcoming event;
determine a threshold for the conditional options related to the at least one
upcoming event;
receive a reservation request for the at least one upcoming event, wherein the request comprises a reservation to purchase, based on a first condition, a plurality of resources managed by a plurality of peers, respectively, for the upcoming event,
receive a request to store a new conditional option for the at least one upcoming event, wherein further configured to:
determine a count of the conditional options is less than the determined threshold or equal to the determined threshold;
store the new conditional option based on the determination that the count of the conditional options is less than the determined threshold; and
deny the storage of the new conditional option in the blockchain ledger based on the determination that the count of the conditional options is equal to the determined threshold is further configured to receive a reservation request for the at least one upcoming event, wherein the reservation request comprises a reservation to purchase, based on a first condition, a plurality of resources managed by a plurality of blockchain peers, respectively, for the at least one upcoming event, wherein the conditional options are associated with the plurality of resources, and
verify that the reservation does not exceed the threshold for conditional options,
execute a first consensus process, among the plurality of peers,
wherein the first consensus process commits a conditional
transaction with the reservation to the ledger;
read, an incoming stream of data and detect occurrence of the first condition based on a result of a different event that is read from the incoming data, and
based on the detected occurrence of the first condition, execute a second consensus process with the plurality of peers which simultaneously activates a purchase transaction for the plurality of resources with the plurality of peers, respectively.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations;
advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of sales activities or behaviors, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “processor, network interface, stream of data, web server, blockchain transaction, blockchain peers, blockchain ledger, dependency-graph based machine learning model, blockchain smart contract”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “processor, network interface, stream of data, web server, blockchain transaction, blockchain peers, blockchain ledger, dependency-graph based machine learning model, blockchain smart contract”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (“processor, network interface, stream of data, web server, blockchain transaction, blockchain peers, blockchain ledger, dependency-graph based machine learning model, blockchain smart contract”)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; mere data gathering/post solution activity; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; moreover
claims 2-3, 6-8, 11-12, 15-17 and 19-20 and their analogous claims also further recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights