DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 1/12/26.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Claim 11 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are rejected as set forth 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection (and corresponding rejections to its dependent claims, if applicable) is maintained.
Applicant has not provided substantial arguments and/or evidence to rebut the 35 USC 101 rejection.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 1-10, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Claim 1 recites: A system digital asset-backed data interaction system comprises: a first computing entity including a first data management data unit operable to store data and initiate a data interaction with a second computing entity, and wherein the first data management unit includes a first data interaction interface operable to interface with a data interaction computing entity and a data interaction computing entity-enabled smart contract; wherein the data interaction computing entity is operable to: obtain, via the first data interaction interface, data interaction information from one or more of the first computing entity and the second computing entity; translate the data interaction information into data interaction terms for input to a data interaction computing entity-enabled smart contract; execute a real-time data interaction process to back the data interaction with system digital assets of a plurality of system digital assets to secure real-time processing of the data interaction; and execute a nonreal-time data interaction process to verify data sent from the first computing entity for the data interaction; and a data interaction backing computing entity associated with the data interaction computing entity, wherein the data interaction backing computing entity includes a plurality of data interaction backing accounts, wherein one or more data interaction backing accounts of the plurality of data interaction backing accounts is operable to store the plurality of system digital assets, and wherein the one or more data interaction backing accounts is associated with one or more of the first computing entity and the second computing entity.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a system, which are statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of performing a payment transaction in either real-time with collateral or nonreal-time via the use of a contract (a certain method of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interactions, e.g. including agreements in the form of contracts, sales activities/behaviors, business relations) but for the recitation of additional claim elements. That is, other than reciting a first/second computing entity, a data interaction interface to interface with a data interaction computing entity and a data interaction computing entity-enabled smart contract, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being considered as sales activities/behaviors and business relations, i.e. performing a payment transaction in either real-time with collateral or nonreal-time via the use of a contract. For example, a bank teller is capable of processing a payment transaction for a customer either in real-time or nonreal-time. In the case of real-time, the bank teller can hold funds in the customer’s account as collateral. In the case of nonreal-time, the bank teller can verify details in the payment transaction request. The bank teller can also translate details in the payment transaction request into a format suitable for a written contract.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2-10, which further recite the abstract idea of performing a payment transaction in either real-time with collateral or nonreal-time via the use of a contract.
Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) merely add 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. For example, abstract idea is merely implemented on a first/second computer entity, the computer entity including an interface that allows the computer entity to communicate with other computer entities and an entity-enabled smart contract. Furthermore, the additional claim elements(s) generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of smart contracts.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2-10, which include additional claim elements that merely add 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. For example, the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer entity.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 5-7, which include additional claim elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of smart contracts / consensus networks / distributed ledger technology.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claims 1-3, 5, the limitations “execute a real-time data interaction process”, “execute a nonreal-time data interaction process render the scope of the claim indefinite because the terms ‘real-time’ and ‘nonreal-time’ are relative terms. The terms are not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how long the durations of the real-time and nonreal-time data interaction processes are. The most relevant section of the Specification provides an example in which a nonreal-time data interaction loop takes longer than a real-time data interaction loop ([0067]). However, this covers an infinitely vast range of possibilities and does not reasonably describe the length of the durations of the interaction processes. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
By virtue of their dependence, the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 20190213518 to Lee discloses a fully functional workflow platform or middleware on a mobile device that is able to create, modify and execute its own workflows and synchronize with external services on the mobile device or on a remote back-end such as a server using asynchronous and/or synchronous communications. This invention also includes a back-end computing platform that integrates with the mobile device and with a blockchain.
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 JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights