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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Oct. 09, 2019 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on July 18, 2025.
Claims 1-20, 22-38, 43 have been canceled.
Claims 21, 39-42 and 44-46 are pending.
Claims 21, 39-42 and 44-46 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues: Rejection - 35 U.S.C. §101 Claims 21-22 and 39-46 stand rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21-22 and 39 have been amended, without prejudice, and accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of this rejection of claims 21-22 and 39. See Applicant’s Arguments page 6.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. As a preliminary matter, the Examiner follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) which is a synthesis of the case law of Alice and its progeny. Additionally, the reasoning for this rejection is the same as was laid out in the Office Action Final Rejection, dated 03/28/2025 (hereinafter, “Office Action”). Furthermore, while Applicant has amended the claim to recite additional subject matter, for example, the amended claim (dependent claim 22 incorporated into independent claim 21), limitations recite: wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain, wherein the proximity records to identify and prove one or more locations of the one or more computing devices, and wherein the proximity records are provided to an entity offering products or services in response to a query placed by the entity, further describe the abstract idea of storing data on a distributed ledger. Furthermore, wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain, and wherein the proximity records are provided to an entity offering products or services in response to a query placed by the entity, can be performed by using a pen and paper and/or that can be performed mentally. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Additionally, a computing device, processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims (e.g., the amended claims) recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04). (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
The claims (e.g., the amended claims) also fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional claim elements are considered when determining whether the claim recites a practical application, such as a technological improvement, of the abstract idea. However, the claims fail to introduce any such additional elements. Again, wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain, and wherein the proximity records are provided to an entity offering products or services in response to a query placed by the entity are not considered as additional claim elements. Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. And the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, this analysis is the same as was laid out in the Office Action. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims also fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional elements, when considered individually and as a combination, are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. However, the claims (e.g., the amended claims) fail to recite any new additional elements. As noted in the Office Action, the additional elements serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment.
Furthermore, the claims (e.g., the amended claims) recite, wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain, and wherein the proximity records are provided to an entity offering products or services in response to a query placed by the entity, it does not appear that the amended claim would result in any improvement to the recited technology. Therefore, the claims limitations do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO). See detail rejection below.
Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 21, 39-42 and 44-46 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant' s amendment to the claims.
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.
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.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (e.g. a computer-readable medium). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable media typically covers form of non-transitory tangible medial and transitory propagating signal per se in when specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (see originally-filed specification paragraph [0072]: In still other embodiments, executable code/programming instructions1004 may be encoded in transitory computer readable medium, such as signals). See In re Nuijted, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed cir 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C 101, Aug 24, 2009; p. 2. 7.
Claims 21, 39-42 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 21 and 39-41 are directed to a computing device, and claims 42 and 44-46 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of storing data on a distributed ledger. Specifically, the claims recite “storing of proximity records, sharing records of the proximity records, or receipt records of the proximity records, wherein the one or more of the proximity records, the sharing records, or the receipt records are associated with one or more computing devices that are proximally located of each other as posted in a distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger having proximity records is implemented using a blockchain establishing an evidence trail relating to assertions regarding one or more times or one or more locations indicating one or more observations relating to the one or more computing devices, wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain, wherein the proximity records to identify and prove one or more locations of the one or more computing devices, and wherein the proximity records are provided to an entity offering products or services in response to a query placed by the entity”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) because it describes a process for carrying out a commercial interaction between parties that involves communicating data needed to complete a transaction to the parties. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a or d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a computing device, processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the computing device, processing circuitry coupled to the memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry perform(s) the steps or functions of “processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry to facilitate storing of proximity records, sharing records of the proximity records, or receipt records of the proximity records, wherein the one or more of the proximity records, the sharing records, or the receipt records are associated with one or more computing devices that are proximally located of each other as posted in a distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger having proximity records is implemented using a blockchain establishing an evidence trail relating to assertions regarding one or more times or one or more locations indicating one or more observations relating to the one or more computing devices, wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain, wherein the proximity records to identify and prove one or more locations of the one or more computing devices, and wherein the proximity records are provided to an entity offering products or services in response to a query placed by the entity.” The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (See 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.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using a computing device, processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of storing data on a distributed ledger. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the computing device, processing circuitry coupled to the memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry perform(s) the steps or functions of “processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry to facilitate storing of proximity records, sharing records of the proximity records, or receipt records of the proximity records, wherein the one or more of the proximity records, the sharing records, or the receipt records are associated with one or more computing devices that are proximally located of each other as posted in a distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger having proximity records is implemented using a blockchain establishing an evidence trail relating to assertions regarding one or more times or one or more locations indicating one or more observations relating to the one or more computing devices, wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain, wherein the proximity records to identify and prove one or more locations of the one or more computing devices, and wherein the proximity records are provided to an entity offering products or services in response to a query placed by the entity”. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of storing data on a distributed ledger. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims
Dependent claims 39, 40-41 and 44-46 further describe the abstract idea of storing data on a distributed ledger.
Claims 39 and 44 recite: wherein the distributed ledger is implemented using a blockchain, wherein the distributed ledger circuitry is further to update the distributed ledger in response to one or more changes to status or proximity of the one or more computing devices.
Claims 40 and 45 recite: wherein the transaction circuitry is further to determine the one or more locations of the computing devices based on a proximity device graph posted in the distributed ledger.
Claims 41 and 46: wherein the one or more computing devices comprises one or more mobile computing devices, wherein the processing circuitry comprises one or more of application processing circuitry or graphics processing circuitry.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21, 39-42 and 44-46 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.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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.
Claims 21, 39-42 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittman et al. (US 20170352119 A1 “Pittman”) in view of Dennis M. KENNEDY (US 20170132626 A1, “KENNEDY”) in view of Stephen D. Zelinka (US 20130281110 A1, “Zelinka”) further in view of Jayachandran et al. (US 20190028277 A1, “Jayachandran”).
Regarding claims 21 and 42: Pittman discloses: A computing device comprising:
processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry to facilitate storing of proximity records, sharing records of the proximity records, or receipt records of the proximity records, wherein the one or more of the proximity records, the sharing records, or the receipt records are associated with one or more computing devices that are proximally located of each other as posted in a distributed ledger (Pittman [abstract]: a method may include receiving data about a first person and a second person, the first person having a contagion. The method may include determining whether a first location is within a proximity distance to a second location. The method may include determining whether a first time is within a proximity time period with a second time. The method may include defining a proximity relationship for the second person relative to the first person. The defined proximity relationship may be positive when the first location is within the proximity distance and first time is within the proximity time period, or the defined proximity relationship may be negative when either the first location is not within the proximity distance or first time is not within the proximity time period. When the proximity relationship is positive, the second person may be labeled as being contaminated by the contagion), wherein the [data base] having proximity records is implemented using a [network] establishing an evidence trail relating to assertions regarding one or more times or one or more locations indicating one or more observations relating to the one or more computing devices (Pittman [0022]: people travel and can move into and out of proximity zones, and the time stamp of being present in a proximity zone may also be recorded in order to be compared to the time stamp the infected person is in the proximity zone; [0014]: the proximity relationship can be defined by a first person coming into contact with a second person, which can be tracked with the signal tracker), wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity (i.e., using anonymous identifier) with respect to the information in the [storing records/data in a database implemented using a [network], (see also paragraphs [0022], [0014] [0027] and [0049] and Figs. 1B and 2), wherein the proximity records to identify and prove one or more locations of the one or more computing devices (see abstract, paragraphs [0053]-[0054] and Figs. 1B and 2), and wherein the proximity records are provided to an entity offering products or services in response to a query placed by the entity (see abstract, paragraphs [0014], [0022], [0065], [0072], [0004], [0013] and [0057]-[0058]).
Examiner’s Note: with respect to “wherein the distributed ledger having proximity records is implemented using a blockchain establishing an evidence trail relating to assertions regarding one or more times or one or more locations indicating one or more observations relating to the one or more computing devices, wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain”. This limitation does not limit the functionality of the system because this limitation is outside the scope of the claimed computing device comprising: processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry. Furthermore, this limitation falls outside the scope of the claimed computing device comprising: processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry because it recites operation not performed by the claimed system. Therefore, this limitation has limited patentable weight, since steps of “wherein the distributed ledger having proximity records is implemented using a blockchain establishing an evidence trail relating to assertions regarding one or more times or one or more locations indicating one or more observations relating to the one or more computing devices, wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain” are not positively tied with any structure element of the computing device comprising: processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having distributed ledger circuitry. And with respect to the claim 42, this limitation is not positively recited functional step and hence receive limited patentable weight.
As indicated above, Pittman discloses storing records/data in a database.
Pittman does not specifically disclose: a distributed ledger system.
However, KENNEDY discloses: a distributed ledger system to store location data and prove location of a device (KENNEDY [0004]: The present disclosure provides a description of systems and methods for validating blockchain transactions using a transaction processing network; [0027]: he data record posted to the blockchain may include transaction data values that may be beneficial for use in additional verification of the associated electronic payment transaction, such as transaction amount, transaction time and/or date, geographic location, merchant name, etc. In some instances, the generated data record may not include transaction account numbers. In some cases, one or more transaction data values may be hashed, such that the values may be verified via the generated data record, without the underlying transaction data values being obtainable; [0030]: The authentication score may indicate a likelihood of fraud, such as based on a comparison of a merchant identifier to a geographic location, a transaction amount to a blockchain currency amount, etc. The verification score may indicate a likelihood of fraud for the blockchain transaction, such as based on the currency amount and the sender address (e.g., if the sender address has access to sufficient currency based on prior blockchain transactions)); (see paragraphs [0004], [0027], [0030] and [0048] and Figs. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pittman with KENNEDY to include a distributed ledger system (e.g., blockchain) to enhance system security and performance.
As indicated above, Pittman discloses recording location data with timestamp and verifying the location data and establishing an evidence trail relating to assertions regarding one or more times or one or more locations (Pittman [0022]: people travel and can move into and out of proximity zones, and the time stamp of being present in a proximity zone may also be recorded in order to be compared to the time stamp the infected person is in the proximity zone; [0014]: the proximity relationship can be defined by a first person coming into contact with a second person, which can be tracked with the signal tracker), (see paragraph [0022] and [0014] and [0065]). Thus, Pittman discloses, wherein the [database] having proximity records [stored in the database] establishing an evidence trail relating to assertions regarding one or more times or one or more locations indicating one or more observations relating to the one or more computing devices.
However, for compact persecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Zelinka to specifically disclose:
wherein the [location provider system 120 / crowdsourcing database] having proximity records is implemented using a [communication network] establishing an evidence trail relating to assertions regarding one or more times or one or more locations indicating one or more observations relating to the one or more computing devices (Zelinka [0166]: querying mobile device 730 receives the location broadcast messages 756 via the second communication network (e.g., using a network interface of the querying mobile device 730) and passes the location broadcast message 756 to the location crowdsourcing module 734. After receiving the location broadcast messages 756, the location crowdsourcing module 734 generates a report 760 based on the received location broadcast messages 756A and 756B, and causes the querying mobile device 730 to transmit the report 760 to location provider system 720 via the first communication network. Location provider system 720 may be communicated with as a web-accessible service, for example. The report 760 may also serve as a request to determine the location of querying mobile device 730. In one embodiment in which the location broadcast messages 756 include locations of the respective participating mobile devices 740, the report 760 includes those locations. In another embodiment, in which the location broadcast messages 756 include information indicating an "opt in" status of the respective participating mobile devices 740, the report 760 includes the information indicating the "opt in" status, and/or separate identifiers of identifying the respective participating mobile devices 740. In an alternative embodiment, the location crowdsourcing module 734 generates, and/or causes to be transmitted to the location provider system 720, a separate report for each received location broadcast message 756; [0038]: crowdsourcing database 126 may electronically store, on a computer-readable medium, a configuration record that indicates whether a particular user has opted in or out. In other embodiments, the participant identification module 122 instead (or additionally) identifies which mobile devices are "participating" mobile devices based on determined capabilities of the mobile devices (e.g., based on which mobile devices include a location assistance module similar to the location assistance module 144). Capabilities of mobile devices may also be stored in crowdsourcing database 126), (see paragraphs [0166], [0049] and [0099] and Figs. 16 and 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pittman and KENNEDY with Zelinka to include well-known function, such as determine a location of a mobile device based on multiple proximity device’s locations and generating and storing the location data to enhance location reporting/detection accuracy.
As indicated above, Pittman discloses, wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity (i.e., using anonymous identifier) with respect to the information in the [storing records/data in a database] implemented using a [network] (see also paragraphs [0022], [0014] [0027] and [0049] and Figs. 1B and 2). Thus, Pittman discloses, the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity (i.e., using anonymous identifier).
Pittman does not specifically disclose: maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain.
However, Jayachandran discloses: wherein the evidence trail is established while maintaining anonymity with respect to the information in the distributed ledger implemented using a blockchain (Jayachandran [0018]: The instant application in one embodiment relates to a mechanism that permits a user/consumer/customer to share his/her data/resources hosted by a first provider or original provider with another provider without the providers learning each other's identity. This configuration does not rely on a trusted party and uses a blockchain to enable access to user profile information and maintain anonymity of third parties seeking access to the user profile information; [0022]: The identities of transaction owners are only visible to authorized entities, such as auditors. For other nodes, the identity of transaction owners is hidden in an anonymity set (e.g. set of all users) and transactions from the same user cannot be linked with each other. This type of configuration is ensured through transactional identities such as transaction certificates. The customer profile stored on blockchain is encrypted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pittman, KENNEDY and Zelinka with Jayachandran to include a distributed ledger system (e.g., blockchain) to store data and maintaining anonymity to enhance data privacy and system security.
Regarding claims 39 and 44: Pittman, KENNEDY, Vaccari and Zelinka, discloses the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above.
Pittman further discloses: The computing device of claim 21, wherein the distributed ledger is implemented using a [data base], wherein the distributed ledger circuitry is further to update the distributed ledger in response to one or more changes to status or proximity of the one or more computing devices (see paragraphs [0052]-[0053] and Fig. 2).
As indicated above, Pittman discloses storing records/data in a database.
Pittman does not specifically disclose: a blockchain.
However, KENNEDY discloses: a distributed ledger system to store location data and prove location of a device (KENNEDY [0004]: The present disclosure provides a description of systems and methods for validating blockchain transactions using a transaction processing network; [0027]: he data record posted to the blockchain may include transaction data values that may be beneficial for use in additional verification of the associated electronic payment transaction, such as transaction amount, transaction time and/or date, geographic location, merchant name, etc. In some instances, the generated data record may not include transaction account numbers. In some cases, one or more transaction data values may be hashed, such that the values may be verified via the generated data record, without the underlying transaction data values being obtainable; [0030]: The authentication score may indicate a likelihood of fraud, such as based on a comparison of a merchant identifier to a geographic location, a transaction amount to a blockchain currency amount, etc. The verification score may indicate a likelihood of fraud for the blockchain transaction, such as based on the currency amount and the sender address (e.g., if the sender address has access to sufficient currency based on prior blockchain transactions)); (see paragraphs [0004], [0027], [0030] and [0048] and Figs. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pittman with KENNEDY to include a distributed ledger system (e.g., blockchain) to enhance system security and performance.
Regarding claims 40 and 45: Pittman, KENNEDY, Vaccari and Zelinka, discloses the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above.
Pittman further discloses: The computing device of claim 21, wherein the processing circuitry further comprises:
communication circuitry to communicate with the one or more computing device; and
transaction circuitry to conduct transactions with the one or more computing devices, wherein the [transaction] circuitry is further to determine the one or more locations of the computing devices based on a proximity device graph posted in the distributed ledger (Pittman [0080]: the data can be combined and overlaid for comparison, and also areas that may be contaminated or uncontaminated may be shown (e.g., on a map or otherwise graphically represented), with individuals identified as infected or uninfected), (see also [0027], [0049] and [[0054-[0056]).
Regarding claims 41 and 46: Pittman, KENNEDY, Vaccari and Zelinka, discloses the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above.
Pittman further discloses: The computing device of claim 21, wherein the one or more computing devices comprises one or more mobile computing devices, wherein the processing circuitry comprises one or more of application processing circuitry or graphics processing circuitry (see paragraph [0104]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAHED ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699