DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 04/18/2025.
Claims 1, 8, and 10-11 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by Examiner Mohammed Mustafa.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: lines 7-9, Claim 10: lines 6-8, and Claim 11: lines 6-8 recite the limitation “receive, based on the execution of the application, first registration information associated with the user from the terminal.” It appears that there is a grammatical mistake regarding the ordering of the words in the limitation “the user from the terminal.” The preposition “from” should be “of”. For examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instances recited in Claim 1: lines 7-9, Claim 10: lines 6-8, and Claim 11: lines 6-8 as “receive, based on the execution of the application, first registration information associated with the user of the terminal;” or “receive, based on the execution of the application, first registration information associated with the terminal user.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8: line 7 recite the limitation “the terminal records.” “Terminal records” have not been previously recited in independent claim 1, which claim 8 is dependent upon Independent claim 1. It appears there is a typographical mistake. For examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instance recited in Claim 8: line 7 as “terminal records.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, in In re Hayes Microcomputer Products, the written description requirement was satisfied because the specification disclosed the specific type of microcomputer used in the claimed invention as well as the necessary steps for implementing the claimed function. The disclosure was in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would know how to program the microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in the specification. In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34, 25 USPQ2d 1241, ___ (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present applicant, claims 1, 10, and 11 disclose “provide an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user;” “provide an application associated with a specific service to a terminal of a user;” and “providing, by the server, an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user;” respectively, where causing (cause) is not supported in the specification as to how the applicant is “…causing…” in order to show possession of the invention at the time of filing. While one skilled in the art could have devised a way to accomplish this aspect of the invention, Applicant’s original disclosure lacks sufficient detail to explain how Applicant envisioned achieving the goal of “causing, using the user device, presentation of content associated with the predicted movement associated with the investment” and “cause, using the user device, presentation of content associated with the predicted movement associated with the investment.” Simply stating or re-stating the claim limitation does not provide enough support to show possession. Since these important details about how the invention operates are not disclosed, it is not readily evident that Applicant has full possession of the invention at the time of filing (i.e., the original disclosure fails to provide adequate written description to support the claimed invention as a whole). Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose in detail the specific steps or algorithm needed to perform the operation. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b).
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, in In re Hayes Microcomputer Products, the written description requirement was satisfied because the specification disclosed the specific type of microcomputer used in the claimed invention as well as the necessary steps for implementing the claimed function. The disclosure was in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would know how to program the microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in the specification. In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34, 25 USPQ2d 1241, ___ (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present applicant, claims 1, 10, and 11 disclose “provide an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user;” “provide an application associated with a specific service to a terminal of a user;” and “providing, by the server, an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user;” respectively, where an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user is not supported in the specification as to how the applicant is “……providing an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user…” in order to show possession of the invention at the time of filing. While one skilled in the art could have devised a way to accomplish this aspect of the invention, Applicant’s original disclosure lacks sufficient detail to explain how Applicant envisioned achieving the goal of “provid[ing] an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user” or “providing, by the server, an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user.”
Additionally, claims 1, 10, and 11 disclose “the first transaction data includes: first identification information that includes an application identifier that identifies the specific service, and second registration information, and the public blockchain is a network that executes a smart contract,” where the first transaction data includes: first identification information that includes an application identifier that identifies the specific service, and second registration information, and the public blockchain is a network that executes a smart contract is not supported in the specification as to how the applicant is “……including an application identifier that identifies the specific service, and second registration information, and the public blockchain is a network that executes a smart contract .…” in order to show possession of the invention at the time of filing. While one skilled in the art could have devised a way to accomplish this aspect of the invention, Applicant’s original disclosure lacks sufficient detail to explain how Applicant envisioned achieving the goal of “includ[ing] an application identifier that identifies the specific service, and second registration information, and the public blockchain is a network that executes a smart contract.”
Moreover, claims 2-4 disclose “monitor third transaction data held by at least one node of the plurality of nodes in the public blockchain; and determine, based on the monitored third transaction data;” “refer to the third transaction data; and determine, based on the inquiry from the server and the reference to the third transaction data;” and “the monitored third transaction data is broadcasted to the public blockchain and received by the at least one node,” respectively; where a “third transaction data held by at least one node of the plurality of nodes in the public blockchain,” “the monitored third transaction data,” and “the monitored third transaction data is broadcasted to the public blockchain and received by the at least one node” is not supported in the specification as to how the applicant is “… monitor[ing] third transaction data held by at least one node of the plurality of nodes in the public blockchain …;” “… refer[ing] to the third transaction data and determin[ing], based on the inquiry from the server and the reference to the third transaction data;” and “[broadcasting] the monitored third transaction data …. to the public blockchain and received by the at least one node;” in order to show possession of the invention at the time of filing. While one skilled in the art could have devised a way to accomplish this aspect of the invention, Applicant’s original disclosure lacks sufficient detail to explain how Applicant envisioned achieving the goal of “monitor[ing] third transaction data held by at least one node of the plurality of nodes in the public blockchain;” “refer[ing] to the third transaction data and determin[ing], based on the inquiry from the server and the reference to the third transaction data;” and “the monitored third transaction data is broadcasted to the public blockchain and received by the at least one node.”
Simply stating or re-stating the claim limitations do not provide enough support to show possession. Since these important details about how the invention operates are not disclosed, it is not readily evident that Applicant has full possession of the invention at the time of filing (i.e., the original disclosure fails to provide adequate written description to support the claimed invention as a whole). Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose in detail the specific steps or algorithm needed to perform the operation. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b).
Dependent Claims 7-9 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing user registration, transactional, and transaction approval information without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; Claim 10 is directed to a device, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; and Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is directed to a system, comprising: a memory; a terminal associated with a user; a server configured to: provide an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user, wherein the terminal is configured to execute the application; receive, based on the execution of the application, first registration information associated with the user from the terminal; and control the memory to record the first registration information; and a processor executable on a first node of a plurality of nodes of a public blockchain, wherein the processor is configured to: access a memory area of the first node to determine first transaction data is recorded in the public blockchain, wherein the first transaction data includes: first identification information that includes an application identifier that identifies the specific service, and second registration information, and the public blockchain is a network that executes a smart contract; and transmit the first transaction data to the server based on the determination that the first transaction data is recorded in the public blockchain, wherein the server is further configured to: receive the first transaction data; specify the first registration information in the memory; determine the second registration information matches the specified first registration information; call the smart contract from a second node of the plurality of nodes based on the determination that the second registration information matches the specified first registration information; and input, to the smart contract called from the second node, approval information for approval of the first transaction data, wherein the smart contract records second transaction data in the public blockchain based on the input of the approval information to the smart contract. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing user registration, transactional, and transaction approval information (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of incorrectly identifying, approving, and recording transaction data into a public blockchain; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and approving transactional data to be inputted into contract, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Specifically, the additional elements, a memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 are directed to a system that performs steps that describe the abstract idea of processing user registration, transactional, and transaction approval information, which is mitigating risk of incorrectly identifying, approving, and recording transaction data into a public blockchain; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and approving transactional data to be inputted into contract, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 2-4 and 7-9 recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of a memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Specifically, the additional elements, a memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: aa memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Claim 10 is directed to a device comprising: a memory; and a processor executable on a first node of a plurality of nodes of a public blockchain, wherein the processor is configured to: provide an application associated with a specific service to a terminal of a user; receive, based on execution of the application on the terminal, first registration information associated with the user from the terminal; control the memory to record the first registration information; control access to a memory area of the first node to determine first transaction data is recorded in the public blockchain, wherein the first transaction data includes: first identification information that includes an application identifier that identifies the specific service, and second registration information, and the public blockchain is a network that executes a smart contract; specify the first registration information in the memory based on the determination that the first transaction data is recorded in the public blockchain; determine the second registration information matches the specified first registration information; call the smart contract from a second node of the plurality of nodes based on the determination that the second registration information matches the specified first registration information; and input, to the smart contract called from the second node, approval information for approval of the first transaction data, wherein the smart contract records second transaction data in the public blockchain based on the input of the approval information to the smart contract. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing user registration, transactional, and transaction approval information (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of incorrectly identifying, approving, and recording transaction data into a public blockchain; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and approving transactional data to be inputted into contract, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a memory, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, application, terminal, memory area, network, and smart contract, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a memory, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, application, terminal, memory area, network, and smart contract, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Specifically, the additional elements, a memory, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, application, terminal, memory area, network, and smart contract, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a memory, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, application, terminal, memory area, network, and smart contract is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 10 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a memory, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, application, terminal, memory area, network, and smart contract are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is directed to a method, which recites a series of steps, e.g., in a service providing system that includes a server, a memory, a terminal associated with a user, and a processor: providing, by the server, an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user; and receiving, by the server, based on execution of the application, first registration information associated with the user from the terminal; controlling, by the server, the memory to record the first registration information; controlling execution of the processor on a first node of a plurality of nodes of a public blockchain; accessing, by the processor, a memory area of the first node to determine first transaction data is recorded in the public blockchain, wherein the first transaction data includes: first identification information that includes an application identifier that identifies the specific service, and second registration information, and the public blockchain is a network that executes a smart contract; transmitting, by the processor, the first transaction data to the server based on the determination that the first transaction data is recorded in the public blockchain; receiving, by the server, the first transaction data; specifying, by the server, the first registration information in the memory; determining, by the server, the second registration information matches the specified first registration information; calling, by the server, the smart contract from a second node of the plurality of nodes based on the determination that the second registration information matches the specified first registration information; and inputting, by the server, to the smart contract called from the second node, approval information for approval of the first transaction data, wherein the smart contract records second transaction data in the public blockchain based on the input of the approval information to the smart contract. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing user registration, transactional, and transaction approval information (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of incorrectly identifying, approving, and recording transaction data into a public blockchain; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and approving transactional data to be inputted into contract, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a service providing system, memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a service providing system, memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Specifically, the additional elements, a service providing system, memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking a service providing system, memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 11 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a service providing system, memory, terminal, server, application, processor, first node, second node, plurality of nodes, public blockchain, memory area, network, and smart contract, limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim: Claim 1, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, claims 2-4 and 7-9 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-4 and 7-11 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
27. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
28. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
29. Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaraman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0303942 A1; hereinafter “Balaraman”), in view of Arora (U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2020/0097924 A1; hereinafter “Arora”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11:
Balaraman teaches:
An information processing system, comprising: a memory; a terminal associated with a user; [a server] configured to: (Balaraman, See, Para. 19, 20, 22-23, 50, 76; Abstract);
An information processing method, comprising: (Balaraman, See, Para. 19, 20, 22-23, 50, 76; Abstract);
provide an application associated with a specific service to the terminal of the user, wherein the terminal is configured to execute the application; (Balaraman, The system may also include applications deployed on user devices such as, for example, computers, tablets, smartphones, Internet of Things devices (“IoT” devices), etc. The applications may communicate with the blockchain (e.g., directly or via a blockchain node) to transmit and retrieve data. In various embodiments, a governing organization or consortium may control access to data stored on the blockchain. Registration with the managing organization(s) may enable participation in the blockchain network. (See, Para.19-20, 35; Abstract));
receive, based on the execution of the application, first registration information associated with the user from the terminal; and (Balaraman, User terminal 220 may transmit the registration request comprising identifying information (e.g., a merchant ID, existing login credentials, driver's license, etc.) and the public blockchain address to participant registration portal 260. ….. authenticate the registration request based the identifying information. For example, in response to the identifying information comprising a merchant ID (or similar merchant identifying information) (See, Para.19-20, 34-35, 40-42, 48-50; Abstract));
control the memory to record the first registration information; and (Balaraman, Blockchain wallet 225 may serve as a blockchain interface accessible by users and applications installed on user terminal 220. For example, blockchain wallet 225 may be configured to register user terminal 220 with the blockchain, request public key (e.g., blockchain address) and private key pairs from blockchain network 101, and/or otherwise access and interact with blockchain account information. (See, Para.19-20, 34-35, 40-42; Abstract); Process 301 may comprise invoking fraud reporting smart contract 202, via blockchain node 280, in blockchain network 101 to grant fraud management access (step 313). Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may write the registration data to the blockchain. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may also register public blockchain address into an internal data storage in fraud reporting smart contract 202 to track and maintain registered public blockchain addresses (e.g., for fraud management access rights) (See, Para. 48-50, 60-61); Blockchain network 101 may comprise a fraud reporting smart contract 202. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may be configured to control the end-to-end flow of fraud management, including fraud inquiries and fraud reporting. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may be an executable that writes data to the blockchain, queries the blockchain in a predetermined format, and/or controls the application flow based on predetermined function parameters passed by an API call, or the like. (See, Para. 30, 107));
a processor executable on a first node of a plurality of nodes of a public blockchain, wherein the processor is configured to: access a memory area of the first node to determine first transaction data is recorded in the public blockchain, (Balaraman, Blockchain network 101 may comprise various blockchain nodes (e.g., consensus participants) in electronic communication with each other, as discussed further herein. Each blockchain node may comprise a computing device configured to write blocks to the blockchain and validate blocks of the blockchain. (See, Para. 22-24, 26, 29, 33-35, 39-45); Process 301 may comprise invoking fraud reporting smart contract 202, via blockchain node 280, in blockchain network 101 to grant fraud management access (step 313). Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may write the registration data to the blockchain. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may also register…public blockchain address into an internal data storage in fraud reporting smart contract 202 to track and maintain registered public blockchain addresses (e.g., for fraud management access rights). (See, Para. 47-50, 60-65));
wherein the first transaction data includes: first identification information that includes an application identifier that identifies the specific service, and second registration information, and the public blockchain is a network that executes a smart contract; and (Balaraman, User terminal 220 may transmit the registration request comprising identifying information (e.g., a merchant ID, existing login credentials, driver's license, etc.)…the public blockchain address to participant registration portal 260……in response to the identifying information comprising a merchant ID (or similar merchant identifying information)…. In that respect, in response to the merchant ID matching a stored merchant ID, the registration request may be authenticated. (See, Para. 40-55, 60-65); Blockchain network 101 may comprise a fraud reporting smart contract 202. …. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may be an executable that writes data to the blockchain …. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may also perform these functions based on the current value of parameters stored in the blockchain and the identity of the caller of fraud reporting smart contract 202 ….. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may provide functions for inquiring on potential fraud (e.g., by locating a matching fraud record in the blockchain), reporting fraud, permissioning and/or revoking blockchain addresses belonging to a registered entity, confirming a fraud report (See, Para. 23-25, 30));
transmit the first transaction data to [the server] based on the determination that the first transaction data is recorded in the public blockchain, (Balaraman, User terminal 220 may transmit the registration request comprising identifying information (e.g., a merchant ID, existing login credentials, driver's license, etc.) and the public blockchain address to participant registration portal 260.….. authenticate the registration request based the identifying information. For example, in response to the identifying information comprising a merchant ID (or similar merchant identifying information); …… Blockchain network 101 may comprise various blockchain nodes (e.g., consensus participants) in electronic communication with each other, as discussed further herein. Each blockchain node may comprise a computing device configured to write blocks to the blockchain and validate blocks of the blockchain. (See, Para. 19-24, 26, 29, 33-35, 39-45); Process 301 may comprise invoking fraud reporting smart contract 202, via blockchain node 280, in blockchain network 101 to grant fraud management access (step 313). Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may write the registration data to the blockchain. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may also register…public blockchain address into an internal data storage in fraud reporting smart contract 202 to track and maintain registered public blockchain addresses (e.g., for fraud management access rights) (See, Para. 47-50, 60-65, 76));
wherein [the server] is further configured to: receive the first transaction data; (Balaraman, User terminal 220 may transmit the registration request comprising identifying information (e.g., a merchant ID, existing login credentials, driver's license, etc.) and the public blockchain address to participant registration portal 260. ….. authenticate the registration request based the identifying information. For example, in response to the identifying information comprising a merchant ID (or similar merchant identifying information) (See, Para.19-23, 34-35, 40-42, 48-50, 60-65, 76));
specify the first registration information in the memory; (Balaraman, Blockchain network 101 may comprise various blockchain nodes (e.g., consensus participants) in electronic communication with each other, as discussed further herein. Each blockchain node may comprise a computing device configured to write blocks to the blockchain and validate blocks of the blockchain. (See, Para. 22-24, 26, 29, 33-35, 39-45); Process 301 may comprise invoking fraud reporting smart contract 202, via blockchain node 280, in blockchain network 101 to grant fraud management access (step 313). Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may write the registration data to the blockchain. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may also register…public blockchain address into an internal data storage in fraud reporting smart contract 202 to track and maintain registered public blockchain addresses (e.g., for fraud management access rights)(See, Para. 19-23, 34-35, 47-50, 60-65));
determine the second registration information matches the specified first registration information; (Balaraman, User terminal 220 may transmit the registration request comprising identifying information (e.g., a merchant ID, existing login credentials, driver's license, etc.)…the public blockchain address to participant registration portal 260……in response to the identifying information comprising a merchant ID (or similar merchant identifying information)…. In that respect, in response to the merchant ID matching a stored merchant ID, the registration request may be authenticated. (See, Para. 40-55, 60-65));
call the smart contract from a second node of the plurality of nodes based on the determination that the second registration information matches the specified first registration information; and (Balaraman, Process 301 may comprise invoking fraud reporting smart contract 202, via blockchain node 280, in blockchain network 101 to grant fraud management access (step 313). Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may write the registration data to the blockchain. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may also register the public blockchain address into an internal data storage in fraud reporting smart contract 202 to track and maintain registered public blockchain addresses …. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 returns a fraud management access confirmation to participant registration portal 260 (step 315). …… process 501 may comprise invoking fraud reporting smart contract 202 (step 513). Blockchain node 230 may invoke fraud reporting smart contract 202 by passing the potential fraud report hash the public blockchain address. The call to fraud reporting smart contract 202 may be secured using the private key from the user. …. Process 501 may comprise validating user fraud management authorization (step 515). Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may validate that the public blockchain address associated with the user is authorized to access and/or perform writes to blockchain network 101 (e.g., fraud management access rights) by querying the blockchain to locate registration data (e.g., as added to the blockchain in process 301, with brief reference to FIGS. 3A and 3B). (See, Para. 49-65; Fig. 3A-B, 5));
input, to the smart contract called from the second node, approval information for approval of the first transaction data, (Balaraman, Process 301 may comprise invoking fraud reporting smart contract 202, via blockchain node 280, in blockchain network 101 to grant fraud management access (step 313). Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may write the registration data to the blockchain. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may also register the public blockchain address into an internal data storage in fraud reporting smart contract 202 to track and maintain registered public blockchain addresses …. Fraud reporting smart contract 202 returns a fraud management access confirmation to participant registration portal 260 (step 315). …… process 501 may comprise invoking fraud reporting smart contract 202 (step 513). Blockchain node 230 may invoke fraud reporting smart contract 202 by passing the potential fraud report hash the public blockchain address. The call to fraud reporting smart contract 202 may be secured using the private key from the user. …. Process 501 may comprise validating user fraud management authorization (step 515). Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may validate that the public blockchain address associated with the user is authorized to access and/or perform writes to blockchain network 101 (e.g., fraud management access rights) by querying the blockchain to locate registration data (e.g., as added to the blockchain in process 301, with brief reference to FIGS. 3A and 3B). (See, Para. 49-65));
wherein the smart contract records second transaction data in the public blockchain based on the input of the approval information to the smart contract. (Balaraman, Process 601 may comprise invoking fraud reporting smart contract 202 (step 609). Blockchain node 280 may invoke fraud reporting smart contract 202 by passing the validated fraud report hash and/or the public blockchain address. The call to fraud reporting smart contract 202 may be secured using the private key from the user. The public blockchain address included in the call may be digitally signed using a trusted certificate authority (e.g., VeriSign®, DigiCert®, etc.). Process 6501 may comprise validating user fraud management authorization (step 611). Fraud reporting smart contract 202 may validate that the public blockchain address associated with the user is authorized to access and/or perform validation writes to blockchain network 101 (e.g., fraud management access rights) by querying the blockchain to locate registration data (e.g., as added to the blockchain in process 301, with brief reference to FIGS. 3A and 3B). (See, Para. 23, 30, 33, 40-55, 60-65)).
Balaraman does not specifically disclose a server. Balaraman discloses that the various system components discussed herein may include one or more of the following: a host server or other computing systems including a processor for processing digital data.
However, Arora further teaches the following limitations:
An information processing system, comprising: a memory; a terminal associated with a user; a [server] configured to: (Arora, processing server. (See, Para. 7, 9, 74; Claims 6 and 14 Abstract; Fig. 2, 5));
transmit the first transaction data to [the server] based on the determination that the first transaction data is recorded in the public blockchain. (Arora, system for processing a multi-account check includes: a receiver of a processing server configured to receive a first authorization request transmitted via payment rails, wherein the first authorization request is formatted according to one or more standards and includes a plurality of data elements configured to store transaction data… a processing device of the processing server configured to identify a blockchain associated with the account identifier, wherein the blockchain includes a plurality of blocks, each block includes a block header and one or more blockchain data values, and a blockchain data value included in one of the plurality of blocks …. a transmitter of the processing server configured to electronically transmit each of the two or more blockchain transaction requests to a node in a blockchain network associated with a separate blockchain. (See, Para. 7, 9, 74; Claims 6 and 14 Abstract; Fig. 2, 5));
wherein [the server] is further configured to: receive the first transaction data; (Arora, system for processing a multi-account check includes: a receiver of a processing server configured to receive a first authorization request transmitted via payment rails, wherein the first authorization request is formatted according to one or more standards and includes a plurality of data elements configured to store transaction data… a processing device of the processing server configured to identify a blockchain associated with the account identifier, wherein the blockchain includes a plurality of blocks, each block includes a block header and one or more blockchain data values, and a blockchain data value included in one of the plurality of blocks(See, Para. 7, 9, 74; Claims 6 and 14 Abstract; Fig. 2, 5)).
It would have been obvious to