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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections made under §101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendment clarifies that the network resources include physical network hardware. Applicant argues that the hardware is used for hosting, running a blockchain node, writing transactions, for participating to the network or for collecting sensor data. (remarks 6-7).
Examiner notes merely mentioning physical hardware does not establish eligibility. The claimed regulation occurs based on asset transfers and is expressly intended to compensate actors. It describes economic balancing, not technical hardware control. Examiner notes that “hardware is used for hosting, running a blockchain node writing transactions, for participating to the network or for collecting sensor data” are ordinary functions of network hardware. The claim does not improve how the hardware performs any of these functions. Under BRI, “allocation of network resources including network hardware” means the amount of resources contributed or supplied by each actor, not an automatic technical resignment of hardware. Paragraphs [0014-17] show that hardware is a resource contributed or used by actors. Claim 1 does not disclose automatically “reallocating” or technically controlling hardware based on an asset transfer. The specification describes redistribution of assets as compensation for unequal resource contributions. Therefore, the network hardware limitation merely identifies one type of contributed resource.
Applicant argues i) automatically regulating an allocation of network resources including network hardware among the N actors based on the transfer of asset amounts in step g) (remarks 8). Examiner notes the applicant does not provide a specific technical improvement by regulating an allocation of network resources.
Applicant argues that the claim “ integrates the alleged abstract idea (i.e., the calculation and distribution of assets) into a practical application, i.e., an automatic regulation and rebalancing of the blockchain network through a reallocation of network resources, including hardware adapted for at least one of hardware hosting, running a blockchain node, writing network transactions, participating to the network or collecting sensor data, between the network actors to automatically compensate for asymmetrical values of their resource contributions.” (remarks 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes Claim 1 does not recite “reallocation” of hardware. It does not require hardware to be moved, reassigned, activated, disabled or reconfigured. The claim identifies no technical mechanism between the asset transfers and hardware operation. Asset transfer compensating an actor for providing hardware does not control that hardware. Applicant’s characterization of the claim as reallocating hardware and technically rebalancing the blockchain network is therefore not commensurate with the claim language.
Applicant further argues that Claim 2 is integrated into a practical application because using smart contract API to track the inflow and outflow contributions of the actors based on the actor’s network identifier and the given time interval which is then stored in a ledger for access.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claim 2 does not recite an improvement to the operation of the smart contract API, blockchain, ledger, or network. The recited “smart contract API” merely invokes a generic component as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). The recited inputs used by the API do not improve smart-contract API. Accordingly, the rejection is 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and Claim 5 is directed toward a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, they all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 5 substantially recite: defining for each actor a; a contribution parameter based on an amount of actor data inflow to the network; b) defining for each actor a; an obtainment parameter based on an amount of actor data outflow out of the network; c) receiving measured values of contribution parameters and measured values of obtainment parameters of the N actors in a given time interval; d) for each actor a, determining an actor contribution ratio Ric based on a ratio between an own contribution parameter associated with the respective actor a, and a sum of all contribution parameters of all N actors; e) for each actor a; determining an actor obtainment ratio Rio based on a ratio between the own obtainment parameter and a sum of all contribution parameters of the N actors; f) for each actor a;, determining a net asset balance NB' based on a product between an asset pool to be distributed among actors and a difference between the contribution ratio and the obtainment ratio; g) at defined points in time, distributing asset pool shares among the actors by transferring asset amounts directly between actor pairs transferal transactions in which, in at least one transferal transaction, a first actor receives an amount of assets from a second actor having a higher net balance, where the amounts of assets amounts are determined according to a predefined distribution rule based on the net asset balances NB', NBi, NBN of the N actors. recording transactions, which distribute the asset pool shares among the actors, regulating an allocation of network resources including network hardware among the N actors based on the transfer of asset amounts in step g) to compensate for asymmetrical values of resource contributions delivered by the N actors, the network hardware adapted for at least one of hardware hosting, running a blockchain node, writing network transactions, participating to the network or collecting sensor data.
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable
interpretation (e.g. distributing assets among providers in a supply chain) covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions). Additionally, the limitations describe a mathematical relationship concept (e.g. calculating each actor’s contribution ratio, calculating each actor’s obtainment ration, determining the difference between the two ratio, multiplying that difference by the asset pool to determine a net asset balance). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 5 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim recites the additional elements of: (i), automatically, network, data processing system, processor and accessible memory, execute, network hardware, network hardware adapted for at least one of hardware hosting, writing network transactions, participating to the network or collecting sensor data (ii) running a blockchain node, blockchain and plurality of corresponding blockchain, a ledger being separate from a ledger used for recording transactions in the blockchain, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See [0003] Blockchains are most often used to record transactions between parties according to a smart contract. [0029-30] a computer program may be provided, comprising computer program code for performing steps according to the above method when loaded in a digital processor of a computing device. [0117] a system may comprise at least a processor and a memory and receive a request for a transaction or action for a product or an item. The system is typically connected to other devices or systems in order to form a network for exchanging information with respect to the lifecycle of the product or the item [0121] Access to the blockchain network may be provided in the form of software as a service ("SaaS"). [0014-15] As used herein the terms "network resource" denotes resource/means allocation for the actors participating in and contributing to the blockchain network. Examples of network resources include, but are not limited to, resource requirements for network participation in terms of hardware, software, time, personnel, data exchange means, data collection means, etcetera.[0069-70] second blockchain) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount
to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, are not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: (i) automatically, network, data processing system, processor and accessible memory, execute network hardware, network hardware adapted for at least one of hardware hosting, writing network transactions, participating to the network or collecting sensor data (ii) running a blockchain node, blockchain and plurality of corresponding blockchain a ledger being separate from a ledger used for recording transactions in the blockchain, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
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.
Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into
a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and
instructions to implement the abstract idea (e.g. using computers to communicate data).
Claim 2 recites “smart contract API”, these are invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), do not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application.
Claim 7 recites “a blockchain application program interface”, this is merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites” a second blockchain”, this is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites “cryptographically hashing”, this is merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely further limit the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented and use the same general technological environment and
instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “smart contract API”, See Specification: [0070] The total volume of read and written data by each actor may preferably be tracked by using a blockchain API ("Application Program Interface") knowing the actor named for each read and write. Advantageously, analytics applications, such as, for example, Mendix of Siemens Industry Software company, may enable data volume tracking of each user. [0031-32] the actor contribution parameter is calculated based on write data volumes by means of a contribution algorithm in a smart contract- this does not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application).
Claim 7 recites “a blockchain application program interface”, (see specification [0077] The total volume of read and written data by each actor may preferably be tracked by using a blockchain API (“Application Program Interface”) knowing the actor named for each read and write), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claim 9 recites” a second blockchain”- (see specification [0069], [0003] Blockchains are most often used to record transactions between parties according to a smart contract.) these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claim 10 recites “cryptographically hashing”- (see specification [0128] a device for cryptographically hashing the submitted transactions based on a cryptographic algorithm [0133])- these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself and are not eligible subject matter under§ 101.
Prior Art
Examiner is unaware of any available prior art that teaches or suggests alone or in
combination with other art the limitations of claim 1 “defining for each actor a; a contribution
parameter based on an amount of actor data inflow to the network; b) defining for each actor a;
an obtainment parameter based on an amount of actor data outflow out of the network; c)
receiving measured values of contribution parameters and measured values of obtainment
parameters of the N actors in a given time interval; d) for each actor a, determining an actor
contribution ratio Ric based on a ratio between an own contribution parameter associated with
the respective actor a, and a sum of all contribution parameters of all N actors; e) for each actor
a; determining an actor obtainment ratio Rio based on a ratio between the own obtainment
parameter and a sum of all contribution parameters of the N actors; f) for each actor a;
determining a net asset balance NB' based on a product between an asset pool to be
distributed among actors and a difference between the contribution ratio and the obtainment
ratio; g) at defined points in time, distributing asset pool shares among the actors by transferring
asset amounts directly between actor pairs through a plurality of corresponding blockchain
transferal transactions in which, in at least one transferal transaction, a first actor receives an
amount of assets from a second actor having a higher net balance, where the amounts of
assets amounts are determined according to a predefined distribution rule based on the net
asset balances NB', NBi, NBN of the N actors. and recording transactions, which distribute the asset pool shares among the actors, in a ledger being separate from a ledger used for recording transactions in the blockchain network and i) automatically regulating an allocation of network resources including network hardware among the N actors based on the transfer of asset amounts in step g) to automatically compensate for asymmetrical values of resource contributions delivered by the N actors of the blockchain network, the network hardware adapted for at least one of hardware hosting, running a blockchain node, writing network transactions, participating to the network or collecting sensor data.”
The closest prior art of records:
Yu (US 11,200,226 B2) related to a method for data read and write.
Pape (US20090187583 A1) related to a system and method for validating label claim.
Increasing supply chain visibility by incentivizing stakeholders to use Blockchain. Center for Transportation and Logistics. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://ctl.mit.edu/pub/thesis/increasing-supply-chain-visibility-incentivizing-stakeholders-use-blockchain.
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 MANAL A. ALSAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/M.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights