DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks of 10/02/2025. Claims 4, 8, 12, 14 and 15 were previously canceled. Claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 have been cancelled. New claim 21 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13 and 16-21 are pending and have been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 .
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, 5-7, 9, 13 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1 and 13 are directed to a device and claim 9 is directed to a process; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for conducting competitive bidding for a product supplier of a product purchase request, matching delivery information to approve delivery of said product from a distributor and providing evaluation information of said supplier and distributor, which is a commercial or legal interaction and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Claim 13 recites a series of steps for transferring payment to a specific authorized customer based on a membership, which is also a commercial or legal interaction and also grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claims as a whole and the limitations in combination recite these abstract ideas. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, in bold below and stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows
1. (Currently amended) An electronic commerce service device comprising: one or more processors; and
a memory configured to store at least one command executed via the one or more processors, the at least one command causes the one or more processors to:
receive a request for purchase of a product from a purchaser;
automatically generate a smart contract for the request for purchase;
distribute the smart contract to a blockchain network;
conduct competitive bidding automatically according to the smart contract to select a supplier of the product in response to receiving the request from the purchaser;
generate a bid information blockchain including information on a transaction associated with the competitive bidding in the blockchain network according to the smart contract in response to conducting the competitive bidding;
match delivery information based on the bid information blockchain in the blockchain network to approve a delivery request made by a distributor terminal to initiate a delivery of the product to the purchaser;
generate a delivery transaction block including the delivery request, the approval of the delivery request, and tracking information of the product;
receive evaluation information provided by the purchaser with respect to the supplier and the distributor terminal;
generate a service completion blockchain including the evaluation information and the delivery transaction block in the bid information blockchain; and
wherein the evaluation information is used for restricting competitive bidding participation for the supplier or restricting the delivery request for the distributor terminal.
13. (Currently amended) A service device comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory configured to store at least one command, the at least one command when executed by the processor cause the one or more processors to:
determine whether an information collection medium satisfies an information collection condition in a smart contract in response to receiving a request for collecting information on a specific customer; and
responsive to determining that the information collection condition in the smart contract is satisfied;
applying information transfer filter to customer data of the specific customer to select at least a part of the customer data of the specific customer stored as a transaction block in a blockchain network and permitted by the specific customer for sharing, and
causing transferring of the at least part of customer data of the specific customer to the information collection medium according to an information permission policy, and
responsive to the at least part of customer data being transferred to the information collection medium, transfer electronic money issued in the blockchain network to the specific customer according to an information reward policy in the smart contract, wherein the information collection condition, the information permission policy, and the information reward policy are generated as the smart contract for the specific customer for storing in the blockchain network, and the smart contract is generated on the basis of access configuration information received from the specific customer according to a membership subscription procedure of a member store.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “one or more processors; and a memory”, “a smart contract”, i.e. blockchain software to complete the abstract idea steps based on certain criteria, “a blockchain network”, “a bid information blockchain”, “a distributor terminal” and “a service completion blockchain” in claims 1 and 9 and “one or more processors; and a memory”, “an information collection medium”, “a smart contract” and “a blockchain network” in claim 13, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. The bolded abstract idea above are business problems and abstract concepts applied in a computing environment. Thus, claims 1, 9 and 13 recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, these judicial exceptions is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed within a blockchain network executing code, storing information and communicating over a generic network, to perform the abstract idea steps. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating information over a generic network, see at least FIGs 1-5 and paragraphs [0058-0070] and [0102-0126] of the specification) such that it amounts 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h), such as leveraging blockchain technology as it was designed to be used. Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1, 9 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic blockchain network and the Internet to perform the limitation steps amounts 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h), such as leveraging blockchain technology as it was designed to be used. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner within a blockchain network cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 9 and 13 are not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claim 1, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract ideas of conducting competitive bidding for a product supplier of a product purchase request, matching delivery information to approve delivery of said product from a distributor and providing evaluation information of said supplier and distributor in claims 1 and 9 and transferring payment to a specific authorized customer based on a membership in claim 13, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 5-7 and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
Claim 5 further refines the abstract idea by conducting the bidding based on the product request and a pre-registered price. A smart contract, i.e. software that performs the abstract idea steps when triggered by an event completion/data, is an additional element leveraged in the blockchain network to perform and automate the abstract idea in a most high level manner. Claim 6 provides certain business rules applied to the abstract idea based on thresholds for time and number of bidders associated with the competitive bidding in which a supplier is chosen based on a supply price. These limitations further refine the abstract idea. Claim 7 recites the additional element of electronic wallet addresses which are merely location addresses within a computing environment to identify an entity. Again, recording information within a block of a blockchain is a well-understood computing activity used to store or update information. There are no technical implementation details for matching address information for a distributor identifying delivery between a purchaser and a supplier such that this could not be done manually or in the mind. Claim 16 further refines the abstract idea by categorizing and associating customer data by service type identification information associated with a customer. Storing data/information used for the abstract idea on a blockchain is well-understood computing activity. Claim 17 further refines the abstract idea by generating and storing customer data by matching each piece of service identification information and further identifying specific service identification information for which the abstract concept of information collection is permitted based on a permission policy. Claim 18 further refines the abstract idea by reciting that customer data is stored irrelevant of the service identification information. Further, filtering information to find only those customers permitted for collection and transmitting said information is part of the abstract idea. Claim 19 recites, at a very high level of generality, that the data is encrypted from the filtered data. There are no technical implementation details such that the encryption is not applying any type of encryption known in a most general manner. Claim 20 merely defines that the money transferred is part of the money paid for collecting information with nothing significantly more. Claim 21 further refines the abstract idea by reciting business rules, policies and conditions for performing the abstract idea. The smart contract is written or programmed with these rule to automate the abstract idea within a blockchain network.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for conducting competitive bidding for a product supplier of a product purchase request, matching delivery information to approve delivery of said product from a distributor and providing evaluation information of said supplier and distributor and transferring payment to a specific authorized customer based on a membership) on one or more computers within a blockchain network, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for conducting competitive bidding for a product supplier of a product purchase request, matching delivery information to approve delivery of said product from a distributor and providing evaluation information of said supplier and distributor and transferring payment to a specific authorized customer based on a membership) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks of 10/2/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully reiterates that the claims are not directed to the sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention significantly improves transparency and trustworthiness of transactions while increasing the security in the customer data. Hence, the claims are directed to transparent and secure data management, which is inherently not commercial interactions or legal interactions.
Therefore, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity and the rejection should be withdrawn.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The abstract idea has been clearly identified in the bolded limitations above. There are no technical details to the “of recording and storing information related to bidding, delivery and evaluation in a blockchain” such that this is anything other than insignificant extra-solution and post-solution activity akin to well-understood, routine and conventional activity akin to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, the transparent and secure data argument is due to leveraging blockchain technology in a most high level and general manner as it was designed to. For instance you can apply a most fundamental abstract idea to a blockchain network and the information added in each additional block is immutable and transparent to all entities having access to the blockchain. Applicant has automated an abstract idea through leveraging a blockchain network at a high level of generality.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Further, the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more.” and on page 9, ‘“These limitations, when combined, advantageously improve in transparency and trustworthiness of transactions while increasing the security in the customer data. Hence, these added limitations amount to "significantly more" and renders the claim eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applying the steps of an abstract invention within a blockchain network, i.e. leveraging known blockchain technology in a most general manner, will increase security and transparency of any information contained in the blocks of the blockchain. This will improve the abstract idea but an improved abstract idea is still abstract. Applicant has automated the abstract idea by leveraging generic processors communicating within a blockchain network for receiving, matching, storing and updating data. MPEP § 2106.05(a) discusses cases in which the Federal Circuit determined that the claims did not reflect an improvement to computer-functionality or other technology. For instance, if a claimed process can be performed without a computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit “cannot be characterized as an improvement in a computer” because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further discussion of these cases, and additional examples of what the courts have indicated does and does not show an improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Further, the claim includes additional elements that amount to significantly more in combination with other elements of the claim even when the additional elements themselves do not amount to significantly more (Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, 827 F.3d 1042, 1051, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” and “However, these limitations, when combined, advantageously improve transparency and trustworthiness of transactions while increasing the security in the customer data by ensuring a continuous, immutable record of the process. Hence, the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more.” and on page 10, “The additional elements of the claimed invention represent limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field or add unconventional steps non- conventional and non-routine steps or elements.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the claims, taken individually or as an ordered combination, have been identified as corresponding to abstract ideas. The additional elements in the claims “one or more processors; and a memory”, “a smart contract”, i.e. a blockchain software to complete the abstract idea steps based on certain criteria, “a blockchain network”, “a bid information blockchain”, “a distributor terminal” and “a service completion blockchain” in claims 1 and 9 and “one or more processors; and a memory”, “an information collection medium”, “a smart contract” and “a blockchain network” in claim 13. Applicant’s specification in at least FIGs 1-5 and paragraphs [0058-0070] and [0102-0126] discloses that generic computing elements programmed to perform the abstract idea in a blockchain network. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces but merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic computer components. The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
In light of the Alice decision and the guidance provided in the MPEP, the features listed in the claims, are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. At best, these features may be considered to be a business solution, using computers, to a problem of conducting competitive bidding for a product supplier of a product purchase request, matching delivery information to approve delivery of said product from a distributor and providing evaluation information of said supplier and distributor and transferring payment to a specific authorized customer based on a membership. The alleged benefits that Applicants argue are due to business decisions, using computers and blockchain technology, rather than any improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. By relying on computing devices to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 “use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept). As discussed in the rejection above, the components of the instant system, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these components. At best, Applicant has claimed features that may improve an abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still abstract, (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (‘“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89-90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”’
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. There is nothing, for example, in the pending claims to suggest that the claimed “one or more processors; and a memory”, “a smart contract”, i.e. a blockchain software to complete the abstract idea steps based on certain criteria, “a blockchain network”, “a bid information blockchain”, “a distributor terminal” and “a service completion blockchain” in claims 1 and 9 and “one or more processors; and a memory”, “an information collection medium”, “a smart contract” and “a blockchain network” in claim 13 are somehow made more efficient or that the manner in which these elements carry out their basic functions is otherwise improved in any way. The alleged advantages that Applicants argue do not concern an improvement in computer capabilities but instead relate to an alleged improvement in conducting competitive bidding for a product supplier of a product purchase request, matching delivery information to approve delivery of said product from a distributor and providing evaluation information of said supplier and distributor and transferring payment to a specific authorized customer based on a membership, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity.
In summary, the computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejection above, rejection of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693