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 first amendment to non-final filed on June 6, 2026.
Claims 1–24 have been canceled.
Claims 25–35 have been added.
Claims 25–35 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 25–35 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 19, 2026.
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 25–35 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 25–31 are directed to a machine (“A distributed computer system”), and claims 32–35 are directed to a process (“A computer-implemented method”). Thus, claims 25–35 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 25–35, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 25, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . a plurality of . . . agents (AEAs), the plurality of AEAs being communicably coupled to one another and configured to execute one or more tasks including communication between AEAs;
wherein at least one AEA of the plurality of AEAs is a client AEA configured to receive . . . input data representing at least one parameter associated with a service request, and to generate service-request data defining at least one computing task to be executed for fulfilling the service request;
a plurality of . . . ledgers comprising a first . . . ledger and at least one second . . . ledger;
. . . provide security protocols and a set of rules for communication and processing of data between the plurality of AEAs;
at least one second . . . ledger comprising entries including data representing aggregation of transaction data recorded in temporal order, wherein the transaction data comprises, for one or more AEAs of the plurality of AEAs, historical data of services provided and data representing compliance with the security protocols or the set of rules;
. . . execute one or more . . . contracts recorded in one of the . . . ledgers;
. . . process the transaction data and to deny, for at least one AEA of the plurality of AEAs, access . . . for execution of the one or more . . . contracts,
. . . select, from the plurality of AEAs, at least one AEA having access . . . for execution of the one or more . . . contracts for fulfilling the service request based on the service-request data and the data representing compliance with the security protocols or the set of rules, wherein . . . to execute the one or more . . . contracts using the data representing the aggregation recorded in the at least one second . . . ledger to control execution of the at least one computing task by the selected at least one AEA, thereby executing the service request, and
wherein at least one AEA of the plurality of AEAs is configured to cause recordal, in the first . . . ledger, of data representing information relating to the service request for aggregation.
The claims, therefore, recite generating, executing, and recording 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”, “computing devices”, “data communication network”, “computing arrangement”, “local database”, “software modules”, “autonomous economic agents (AEAs)”, “graphical user interface”, “client device”, “distributed ledgers”, “computing framework”, “data processing arrangement”, “smart contracts”, “blockchain”, “transaction chain”, “directed acyclic graph”, “Tangle”, “adaptive data encryption”, “encryption”, and “decryption”). 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 25 is not patent eligible.
For claim 26, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrows the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the service request recited in claim 25 by further specifying the historical data—“a number of services provided . . . or a confidence score”. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“distributed computing system” and “autonomous economic agents”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides 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 27–31, 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 claim 25 by further specifying the ledger recording—“temporal order of the transaction data recorded”, “when a threshold number of AEAs reach a consensus”, and “transaction information . . ., historical data of services provided . . ., or data representing compliance”, “operations . . . with timestamps”, and “located at a plurality of geographical location”. 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 (“distributed computing system”, “distributed ledger”, “autonomous economic agents”, “smart contracts”, “data processing arrangement”, “database”, and “computing devices”). These claims do recite—blockchain, transaction chain, directed acyclic graph, and Tangle—but again, these are only more specific distributed ledgers also merely being used as tools to store and communicate data. 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 claim 32, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the service request recited in claim 25 by further specifying that it is performed by a method—“method . . . using the distributed computing system of claim 25”. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“distributed computer system”, “autonomous economic agents (AEAs)”, “graphical user interface”, “client device”, “distributed ledger”, “smart contracts”, “computing framework”, and “data processing arrangement”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides 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 claim 33, the additional recited limitations of this claim is merely directed to an abstract idea. This dependent claim only recites applying a confidence score to the service providers to select them, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because it recites the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“computing framework”, “smart contracts”, and “autonomous economic agent”). This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails 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 34 and 35, 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 claim 25 by further specifying how the data is exchanged—“data encryption and data obfuscation” and “encryption, decryption, data obfuscation”. 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 (“computing framework”, “autonomous economic agent”, and “data communication network”). These claims do recite adaptive data encryption, encryption, and decryption, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to securely communicate data. 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not recite a method of organizing human activity. Applicant explains that the claims instead recite a specific technical architecture focused on distributed ledger and smart contract execution control. The claims, however, are directed to receiving and executing a service request, even if they further recite these technologies to do so. The use of distributed ledger and smart contract technologies is an implementation of this abstract idea through additional elements, and is therefore addressed in the next steps of the analysis. Thus, claims 25–35 do recite an abstract idea.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they do not merely recite service provider selection and transaction recordal, but instead recite the specific technical mechanism that controls the selection. Applicant explains that the computing framework, distributed ledger arrangement, and smart contracts cooperate to control access and execution, which is an improvement to technical control, traceability, and coordinated operation of distributed agents. The claims, however, are merely improving the service request itself by improving the selection of providers and recording of the transaction. Although Applicant argues that the claimed invention improves the technical mechanism that performs these operations, the claims are instead merely applying the technical mechanisms to perform generic actions. Multiple distributed ledgers and smart contracts are recited, but they are still being used for their basic functions of recording and regulating the transactions. The claims are therefore merely applying the technologies recited to improve the abstract idea, rather than improving the technologies themselves in any way. Applicant further recites the features of the dependent claims and argues that these claims also integrate the claims into a practical application and recite significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, however, these claims either merely narrow the abstract idea or further specify the additional elements that are still being used as generic tools to implement the abstract idea. For the reasons discussed above, these claims therefore also merely apply the abstract idea to the technologies recited, rather than reciting any technical improvement. Thus, claims 25–35 do not include additional elements sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application or 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
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.
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
Prosecution Insights