Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to at least one statutory category, a system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or 8 or 15 is directed to an abstract idea of for generating custom smart contracts that apply rules or models to generate outputs: receive group data associated with a group, the group data including at least one requirement for joining the group designated by at least one member of the group; generate at least one of one or more rules or model based upon the group data, the one or more rules and the model generated to output a determination whether candidate data of a candidate member requesting admittance into the group meets the at least one requirement to join the group the one or more rules and the model including the at least one requirement, the model trained using sample data sets associated with members of the group to generate an output indicating whether the candidate data satisfies the at least one requirement; generate at least one smart contract configured to execute in response to receiving the candidate data, the at least one smart contract comprising executable instructions configured to apply the candidate data to generate the output; generate and store at least one group including a first block storing data comprising the at least one smart contract and at least one of the one or more rules or the model; in response to receiving the candidate data for the candidate member requesting admittance into the group, (i) generate and store a second block in, the second block associated with the candidate member and comprising the candidate data, and (ii) execute the at least one smart contract; link the first block to the second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the at least one smart contract, (i) apply the candidate data to at least one of the one or more rules or model, and (ii) return the output from at least one of the one or more rules or model, the output indicating a determination of whether the candidate data satisfies the at least one requirement; store the output in the second block ; and output a message indicating that the candidate member has been accepted or denied into the group as a member based upon the output from the at least one smart contract. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or 8 or 15 include: a computer system computer exe-executables or trained artificial intelligence (AI) models to generate outputs and blockchain blocks storing the outputs, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and a blockchain ledger, the at least one processor configured to: computer-executable, an artificial intelligence (Al), the AI model generated to output, the one or more computer-executables rules and the AI model, the AI model trained to generate an output; automatically execute comprising executable instructions to at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model to generate the output; generate and store at least one group blockchain in the blockchain ledger including a first block storing data comprising at least one smart contract and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model; a generate and store a second block in the blockchain ledger, the second block and automatically execute; link the first block to second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the at least one smart contract, at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model, and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method/non-transitory computer readable medium.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer system computer exe-executables or trained artificial intelligence (AI) models to generate outputs and blockchain blocks storing the outputs, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and a blockchain ledger, the at least one processor configured to: computer-executable, an artificial intelligence (Al), the AI model generated to output, the one or more computer-executables rules and the AI model, the AI model trained to generate an output; automatically execute comprising executable instructions to at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model to generate the output; generate and store at least one group blockchain in the blockchain ledger including a first block storing data comprising at least one smart contract and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model; a generate and store a second block in the blockchain ledger, the second block and automatically execute; link the first block to second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the at least one smart contract, at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model, and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0060] and [0070]. Applicant’s specification states that [0060] User computer device 702 may be operated by a user 704 (e.g., a social insurance user). User computer device 702 may receive input from user 704 via an input module 706. User computer device 702 includes a processor 708 for executing instructions. In some embodiments, executable instructions may be stored in a memory area 710.Processor 708 may include one or more processing units (e.g., in a multi-core configuration). Memory area 710 may be any device allowing information such as executable instructions and/or transaction data to be stored and retrieved. Memory area 710 may include one or more computer-readable media and [0070] Processor 805 executes computer-executable instructions. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claim 2, claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 2 recites "a user device" which is also an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 3, claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 3 recites "a computing device" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 5-7 and 21, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 9, claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Claim 9 recites "a user device" which is also an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 10, claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Claim 10 recites "a computing device" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 11-14, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 16, these claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Claim 16 recites "a user device" which is an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 17, claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Claim 17 recites "a computing device" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 18-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or 8 or 15 is directed to an abstract idea of abstract idea of for generating custom smart contracts that apply rules or models to generate outputs: receive group data associated with a group, the group data including at least one requirement for joining the group designated by at least one member of the group; generate at least one of one or more rules or model based upon the group data, the one or more rules and the model generated to output a determination whether candidate data of a candidate member requesting admittance into the group meets the at least one requirement to join the group the one or more rules and the model including the at least one requirement, the model trained using sample data sets associated with members of the group to generate an output indicating whether the candidate data satisfies the at least one requirement; generate at least one smart contract configured to execute in response to receiving the candidate data, the at least one smart contract comprising executable instructions configured to apply the candidate data to generate the output; generate and store at least one group including a first block storing data comprising the at least one smart contract and at least one of the one or more rules or the model; in response to receiving the candidate data for the candidate member requesting admittance into the group, (i) generate and store a second block in, the second block associated with the candidate member and comprising the candidate data, and (ii) execute the at least one smart contract; link the first block to the second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the at least one smart contract, (i) apply the candidate data to at least one of the one or more rules or model, and (ii) return the output from at least one of the one or more rules or model, the output indicating a determination of whether the candidate data satisfies the at least one requirement; store the output in the second block ; and output a message indicating that the candidate member has been accepted or denied into the group as a member based upon the output from the at least one smart contract. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments in regard to assessing 2025 USPTO Kim Memorandum, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claims are not eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The examiner has considered the arguments and the examiner found applicant’s argument not persuasive based on MPEP. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with regard to claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea and step 2A prolong 2 and step 2B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or 8 or 15 include: a computer system computer exe-executables or trained artificial intelligence (AI) models to generate outputs and blockchain blocks storing the outputs, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and a blockchain ledger, the at least one processor configured to: computer-executable, an artificial intelligence (Al), the AI model generated to output, the one or more computer-executables rules and the AI model, the AI model trained to generate an output; automatically execute comprising executable instructions to at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model to generate the output; generate and store at least one group blockchain in the blockchain ledger including a first block storing data comprising at least one smart contract and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model; a generate and store a second block in the blockchain ledger, the second block and automatically execute; link the first block to second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the at least one smart contract, at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model, and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method/non-transitory computer readable medium. Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer system computer exe-executables or trained artificial intelligence (AI) models to generate outputs and blockchain blocks storing the outputs, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and a blockchain ledger, the at least one processor configured to: computer-executable, an artificial intelligence (Al), the AI model generated to output, the one or more computer-executables rules and the AI model, the AI model trained to generate an output; automatically execute comprising executable instructions to at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model to generate the output; generate and store at least one group blockchain in the blockchain ledger including a first block storing data comprising at least one smart contract and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model; a generate and store a second block in the blockchain ledger, the second block and automatically execute; link the first block to second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the at least one smart contract, at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model, and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0060] and [0070]. Applicant’s specification states that [0060] User computer device 702 may be operated by a user 704 (e.g., a social insurance user). User computer device 702 may receive input from user 704 via an input module 706. User computer device 702 includes a processor 708 for executing instructions. In some embodiments, executable instructions may be stored in a memory area 710.Processor 708 may include one or more processing units (e.g., in a multi-core configuration). Memory area 710 may be any device allowing information such as executable instructions and/or transaction data to be stored and retrieved. Memory area 710 may include one or more computer-readable media and [0070] Processor 805 executes computer-executable instructions. The sending and receiving data over a network has been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible. As for dependent claim 2, claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 2 recites "a user device" which is also an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 3, claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 3 recites "a computing device" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claims 5-7, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 9, claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Claim 9 recites "a user device" which is also an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 10, claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Claim 10 recites "a computing device" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claims 11-14, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 16, these claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Claim 16 recites "a user device" which is an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 17, claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Claim 17 recites "a computing device" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claims 18-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695