DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 08/20/2025. Claims 1, 5, and 8-10 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 are pending and have been addressed below. 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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps), claim 9 recites a manufacture i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means) and claim 10 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
3. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite:
“transmitting a transaction to each evaluator of a plurality of evaluators, wherein the transaction includes a digital signature;”, “controlling, based on the transmission of the transaction, execution of verification of the digital signature;”, “controlling, based on the digital signature in the transmitted transaction, execution of…on each evaluator of the plurality of evaluators;”, “acquiring, based on the transmitted transaction, evaluation data indicating evaluation of an evaluation target generated by each evaluator of the plurality of evaluators, wherein the acquired evaluation data includes a score of a test by a test provider as a first evaluator of the plurality of evaluators, and the acquired evaluation data includes first information regarding the verification of the digital signature of each evaluator of the plurality of evaluators and second information…to generate a plurality of reference points of each evaluator of the plurality of evaluators;”, “acquiring, based on the first information and the second information, a value indicating the plurality of reference points of each evaluator of the plurality of evaluators;”, “calculating an absolute evaluation conversion rate for converting the acquired evaluation data into absolute evaluation data, wherein the absolute evaluation conversion rate is calculated based on the acquired evaluation data and a weighted summing operation of a conversion rate of the score of the test using the acquired value as a weight, and the conversion rate is a rate at which the evaluation data of the first evaluator is converted into the absolute evaluation data corresponding to the evaluation data of a second evaluator of the plurality of evaluators serving as a reference;”, “converting the acquired evaluation data into the absolute evaluation data based on the acquired evaluation data, the calculated absolute evaluation conversion rate, and the acquired value;” and “recording the absolute evaluation data, wherein the value, indicating the plurality of reference points of the first evaluator of the plurality of evaluators, increases as a number of references of the evaluation data of the first evaluator increases.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations above recite processes for managing data related to test scores being used by a plurality of evaluators which encompasses a fundamental economic practices (i.e., mitigating risks), commercial interactions, (i.e., business relations) and mathematical relationships, which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
The Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0007] Incidentally, when a blockchain platform spreads and develops, the learner is evaluated by various people and organizations, and learning data that is the evaluation result is written in the blockchain. [0008] In such a case, it may be difficult for the viewer of the learning data to appropriately evaluate the ability or the like of the learner from the content of the browsed learning data, that is, the evaluation result of evaluating the learner. In other words, there may be cases where the viewer cannot evaluate the degree of performance of the score indicated by the learning data appropriately. [0009]
Specifically, for example, if the score indicated by the learning data is a score of a test that is widely and generally known, the viewer can evaluate the ability or the like of the learner appropriately by viewing the score. [0010] However, in a case where the score indicated by the
learning data is a score of a test that is not generally known, there may be a case where the viewer cannot evaluate the ability or the like of the learner appropriately.
.
Consistent with the disclosure the limitations recite processes for mitigating risks for test providers and business relations because the series of steps that recite “transmitting”, “controlling”, “acquiring”, “calculating”, “recording” describe techniques that a school organization may perform for managing and verifying information related to test scores from test providers to ensure the authenticity of the scores, which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Additionally, the limitations that recite “calculating an absolute evaluation conversion rate” and “converting the acquired data into the absolute evaluation data” in the context of the claim pertain to mathematical relationships which is a relationship between variables or numbers. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula. As such, all of these limitations recited in the independent claim are an abstract idea.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “an information processing method”, “an information processing device”, “of the information processing device”, “a smart contract”, “regarding the execution of the smart contract”, “a distributed ledger” - see claim 1, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising” – see claim 9, “an information processing device, comprising: a central processing unit (CPU) configured to:” – see claim 10 are all recited at a high-level of generality in light of the applicant’s specification. For example, the applicant’s specification indicates in at least ([Fig. 20, ¶ 0371]: discloses the series of processing described above can be performed by hardware or software. In a case where the series of processing is performed by software, a program that is included in the software is installed on a computer. Here, the computer includes a computer incorporated in dedicated hardware, a general-purpose personal computer, for example, that can execute various functions by installing various programs, and the like.) In the instant case, the recited “distributed ledger” amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component being used in its ordinary capacity. See spec. [¶ 0040-0041]. Thus, because the specification describes the additional elements in general terms without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting generic computer components for performing the judicial exception in light of the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the additional elements add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
5. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “an information processing method”, “an information processing device”, “of the information processing device”, “a smart contract”, “regarding the execution of the smart contract”, “a distributed ledger” - see claim 1, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising” – see claim 9, “an information processing device, comprising: a central processing unit (CPU) configured to:” – see claim 10amounts to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and therefore does not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
6. Claims 3, 5, 8 are the dependent claims of claim 1
Claim 3 recites “wherein the evaluation data is converted into the absolute evaluation data, based on the acquired evaluation data and the acquired value belonging to a same category.” Further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not change the analysis. Claim 5 recites “calculating, for each of a specific number of evaluators that serve as a reference, the conversion rate; and calculating the absolute evaluation conversion rate based on the conversion rate and the value of each of the plurality of evaluators that serve as the reference.” Further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not change the analysis. Claim 8 recites “wherein the value of the first evaluator is granted for each test of a plurality of tests” further describes the data/information recited in the abstract idea, but does not change the analysis.” Accordingly, the dependent claims have been considered separately and in combination with the judicial exception, and when considered as whole the recited limitations do not to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Further, the Applicant submits that the features of amended independent claim 1 cannot be classified as the alleged abstract idea under "certain methods of organizing human activity" and "mathematical concepts", because the claimed subject matter does not merely describe "concept performed in the mind of the person or with pen and paper" or "manage personal behavior and teaching" or "relationships and formula", respectively.”
“Instead, the features of amended independent claim 1 are, for example, directed to "the signature of the client 71 stored in the transaction is generated on the basis of a certificate issued for the client 71 by the CA of the blockchain network 41." See ¶ [0179] of the Applicant's Specification, as originally filed. Further, the features of amended independent claim 1 are, for example, directed to "the endorsement peer 12 verifies whether the signature of the client 11 included in the transaction is genuine, and approves the transaction if it is confirmed that the signature is genuine. ... [w]hen the transaction is approved, in procedure STP3, the endorsement peer 12 temporarily executes the transaction by executing the smart contract, and adds a signature of the endorsement itself to the transaction." See ¶¶ [0058-0059] of the Applicant's Specification, as originally filed (emphasis added).
“Further, the features of amended independent claim 1 are, for example, directed to "the score conversion rate of the test A obtained for each of the reference tests is subjected to weighted summing using the reference point granted to each of the reference tests as a weight, and the weighted average value obtained as a result is taken as the absolute score conversion rate." See ¶¶ [0298] of the Applicant's Specification, as originally filed (emphasis added). Further, the features of amended independent claim 1 are, for example, directed to "the score indicated by each learning data is converted into an absolute score, so that the viewer can more reliably evaluate the ability or the like of the learner on the basis of the absolute score." See ¶ [0105] of the Applicant's Specification, as originally filed (emphasis added).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. In the instant case, the cited passages from the specification have been considered and the reply discusses the features recited within the abstract idea, however, none of the findings provided by applicant make the claim any less abstract or lead towards eligibility. At best, the reply further describes the data or information necessary to perform the judicial exception but this does not change the previous analysis. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Applicant submits that verification of signature and an execution of the smart contract do not describe subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts of abstract idea, such as the alleged observation. Therefore, the features of amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as a method for organizing human activity or mental process or mental process or mathematical concepts.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. For example, verification of signature is a step that may be performed by a person using a computer. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) emphasizes certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Next, the execution of the smart contract is an additional element that was considered to be mere instructions to apply the judicial exception See MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not lead towards eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “For example, the amended independent claim 1 recites at least, for example, the features of "wherein the acquired evaluation data includes first information regarding the verification of the digital signature of each evaluator of the plurality of evaluators and second information regarding the execution of the smart contract to generate a plurality of reference points of each evaluator of the plurality of evaluators; ... calculating an absolute evaluation conversion rate for converting the acquired evaluation data into absolute evaluation data, wherein the absolute evaluation conversion rate is calculated based on the acquired evaluation data and a weighted summing operation of a conversion rate of the score of the test using the acquired value as a weight." The Applicant's Specification describes that "the transaction includes the signature of the client 71 and the learning data generated in step S11". See at ¶ [0176] of the Specification, as originally filed. Further, the Applicant's Specification describes that "in the blockchain network 41, the smart contract is executed, and a predetermined number of reference points are granted to the test of the test provider B in response to the browsing (referencing) of the learning data." See at ¶ [0110] of the Specification, as originally filed (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Applicant's Specification describes that "the score conversion rate of the test A obtained for each of the reference tests is subjected to weighted summing using the reference point granted to each of the reference tests as a weight, and the weighted average value obtained as a result is taken as the absolute score conversion rate." See ¶¶ [0298] of the Applicant's Specification, as originally filed (emphasis added).”
“Thus, the claimed features amount to an improvement in the technology by providing an information processing device that ensures reliability of evaluation data across multiple evaluators in a blockchain network. Therefore, the Applicant has shown
a teaching in the Specification that describes a practical implementation and has thus established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. The reply cites to passages from the specification and limitations recited in the claim that merely further describe the data/information within the abstract idea but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For example, there are no technical improvements using blockchain technology described by applicant. The “distributed ledger” is discussed in [¶ 0036-0045, 0079] of the specification as a database that records data/information. Thus, the “recording” step performed by the distributed ledger operates in its normal or ordinary capacity to aid in implementing the abstract idea. Improvements as disputed by applicant for ensuring reliability of evaluation data are not considered improvements to the functioning of the computer itself or any other computer technology as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The features of amended independent claim 1 describe an unconventional activity whereby "the score indicated by each learning data is converted into an absolute score, so that the viewer can more reliably evaluate the ability or the like of the learner on the basis of the absolute score." See at ¶ [0105] of the Specification, as originally filed (emphasis added). Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that taking all the claim elements of independent claim individually, and in combination, amended independent claim 1 as a whole amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 recite patent eligible subject matter.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. The cited passage from the specification above has been considered. None of the alleged improvements “enables a computer . . . to do things it could not do before.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). Such claims, whose focus is “not a physical-realm improvement but an improvement in wholly abstract ideas,” are not eligible for patenting. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
It is also important to note that, even if a claimed abstract idea is novel, a claim directed to a new abstract idea is still directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Commce’n Techs., LLC vy. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1182-83 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The courts have previously held, indeed, “we may assume that the techniques claimed are ‘[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility.” SAP Am., Inc., 898 F.3d at 1163 (quoting Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013)). Accordingly, when considering the limitations of claim 1 a whole, none of the steps define a specific technological improvement. Instead, claim 1 is directed to achieving a result and merely recites the steps necessary to perform the abstract ideas themselves. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 recite patent eligible subject matter. Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 9 and 10 recite features similar to amended independent claim 1 and, are therefore, patent eligible for reasons similar to those presented above with respect to amended independent claim 1. Further, dependent claims 3, 5, and 8 recite patent eligible subject matter based at least on the dependence on amended independent claim 1. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 3, 5, and 8-10 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629