DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on January 12, 2026.
Claims 1–16 have been cancelled.
Claims 17–24 have been added.
Claims 17–24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 17–24 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 17–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the consensus mechanism” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the consensus mechanism” has been interpreted as any mechanism for determining consensus. Claims 18–20 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 17.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the consensus mechanism” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the consensus mechanism” has been interpreted as any mechanism for determining consensus. Claims 22–24 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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 17–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 17–20 are directed to a machine (“A distributed computer system”), and claims 21–24 are directed to a process (“A computer-implemented method”). Thus, claims 17–24 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 17–24, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 17, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
at least one client . . . configured to receive . . . at least one parameter associated with the service request and to generate the service request including the at least one parameter;
. . . wherein a threshold number of worker . . . are configured to validate and record entries . . .;
. . . record state update transactions relating to the service request and to conditionally trigger execution of one or more . . . contracts only after a corresponding aggregation state has been recorded . . .;
. . . record behavior profiles of the plurality of worker . . ., wherein the recorded behavior profiles are used . . . to enable or disable participation of respective worker . . . in . . . execution of the one or more . . . contracts;
. . . store a confidence score of each of the plurality of worker . . .;
provide security protocols and a set of rules for communication and processing of information between the plurality of worker . . .;
enable access to the plurality of worker . . . based on compliance with the security protocols and the set of rules;
. . . compare the confidence scores associated with each of the plurality of worker . . .; and
select one of the plurality of worker . . . associated with the highest confidence score for fulfilling the generated service request,
wherein selection of the worker . . . causes execution, by the selected worker . . ., of one or more operations defined by the service request, and wherein . . . the selected worker . . . is configured to automatically execute the one or more operations and to generate a service output corresponding to the service request
The claims, therefore, recite generating and executing a service request, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction. This is further evidenced by specification paragraphs 3–5, which indicate that the service request recited in the claims relates to the commercial transaction of payment in exchange for services (Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0248536, ¶ 3–5: service contracts for services in exchange for payment).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“distributed computer system”, “nodes”, “autonomous economic agents (AEAs)”, “computing arrangement”, “database”, “client device”, “graphical user interface”, “distributed ledger arrangement”, “blockchain”, “immutable form”, “smart contract”, “consensus mechanism”, “open economic framework”, “zero knowledge protocol”, and “data processing arrangement”). The additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to communicate and receive various information and then execute a contract and fulfil a service request. Claim 1 does introduce more specific technology—a distributed ledger and a smart contract—but again, these are merely being used as generic tools to implement the abstract idea above. The distributed ledger only provides an alternative means for receiving and storing information, as evidenced by the specification (¶ 38: “Herein, the term ‘distributed ledger arrangement’ refers to a ledger (such as a database)”). And, the smart contract only provides an alternative means for executing the service request, as evidenced by the specification (¶ 38: “According to the common knowledge in the field of computer science and distributed ledgers, smart contracts may be one or more computer algorithms or a transaction protocols . . . Smart contracts may also control, record or document such events or actions according to the terms agreed, for example agreed on a contract.”). The additional elements are therefore still merely applying the abstract idea to these technologies, using them as generic tools, rather than creating any type of improvement to the technologies themselves. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 21 is rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 17. There are no additional elements recited in this claim other than the generic computer parts discussed above (“distributed computer system”, “nodes”, “autonomous economic agents (AEAs)”, “computing arrangement”, “database”, “client device”, “graphical user interface”, “distributed ledger arrangement”, “blockchain”, “immutable form”, “smart contract”, “consensus mechanism”, “open economic framework”, and “zero knowledge protocol”). The only difference is that the features of claim 17 are implemented by a method in claim 21. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claim 21 is also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 18–20 and 22–24 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 18 and 22, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the service request recited in claims 17 and 21 by further specifying how the smart contract is executed—“data processing arrangement”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“smart contracts”). These claims do recite a data processing arrangement, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to execute the service request. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 19 and 23, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite performing supplementary tasks related to a service request, which is the abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“nodes”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 20 and 24, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the service request recited in claims 17 and 21 by further specifying what it includes—“time needed . . . price . . . quality . . . and at least one preference”.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because it recites a technical improvement. Applicant explains that the claims recite zero-knowledge verification enabling validation of nodes in the distributed environment without centralized processing. Applicant further explains that execution of the service request is conditionally controlled by the ledger recorded state and participation constraints. These features cited by Applicant, however, are the functions of these technologies, rather than any technological improvement. The claimed invention is merely applying these technologies, performing their standard functions, to improve the abstract idea, making it more efficient and secure. Applicant next argues that the claims recite three separate ledger arrangements that, in combination, provide a novel system that improves security, by reducing malicious attacks, through distributing aggregation, controlling execution, and tracking behavior. Applicant explains that the cross-chain bridging has higher security, and distributed ledgers enable competition through staking and reputation mechanisms, as explained in the specification. Applicant therefore concludes that the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology because they address technical problems inherent in distributed systems, including security and coordination. As explained above, however, the distributed ledger technologies are merely performing their standard functions, of tracking data and executing smart contracts. Even though there are multiple distributed ledgers recited, in combination they are still merely being applied to improve the abstract idea, rather than providing a technological improvement in any way. Thus, claims 17–24 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant explains, as above, that the claims recite multiple ledger systems that provide technical improvements to security and execution of smart contracts. Applicant further explains that the Office Action has labelled the claims generic through conclusory assertion without satisfying the evidentiary burden. See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision, USPTO Memo (April 19, 2018) (“Berkheimer Memo”). Although Applicant is correct about the requirements under the Berkheimer Memo, these standards are only required when establishing that an additional element is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the Step 2B analysis under the current guidelines. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 56 n. 36 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”). The analysis under previous Step 2A Prong Two does not evaluate whether additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, so the Berkheimer Memo requirements need not be considered for this step. See 2019 PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55. Furthermore, the Step 2A Prong Two considerations need not be reevaluated under Step 2B, unless the additional elements are concluded to be directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. See 2019 PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 56. Thus, it is not even necessary to consider whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional because merely applying an abstract idea to a computer, as established in Step 2A Prong Two, cannot provide an inventive concept, as required under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). And, as explained above, the claims are merely applying these various technologies, using their standard functions, to improve the abstract idea, rather than provide any technological improvement. Thus, claims 17–24 do not include additional elements sufficient to recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Chessell et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0285979, discloses storing service history information on a blockchain
High et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0349879, discloses a distributed blockchain system for executing contracts.
Cohn et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0007131, discloses a peer-to-peer environment for outputting service orders to service providers based on service contracts.
Jhoney et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 7,676,539, discloses collaborative agents for executing tasks and services.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696